Rs 85 lakh bitcoin scam: Why Calcutta High Court refused to quash case despite ‘innocence’ claim

Question of quashing proceeding

• The petitioner filed the petition for quashing the complaint, which was not an FIR-named person, and therefore, at this stage question of quashing the proceeding does not arise since a direction has been given for further investigation.
• It is contended that the account of the petitioner was kept frozen even after the Final Report (FRT) was filed.
• In the fore corner of this application, no such statement on affidavit was mentioned except that he apprehended that he may be unjustly implicated or drawn into the proceeding and could be wrongfully summoned by the investigating agency in connection with this matter.

Rs 85.80 lakh ‘fraud’

• The case originated from a complaint filed by a man, who alleged that unknown accused persons induced him to invest in bitcoin trading through a company named Yotemo Currency Services.
• Between April and June 2024, the complainant sent an amount of Rs 85.80 lakhs to the accused person through an online transaction.
• When he attempted to withdraw his balance, he was met with demands for additional verification funds, cross-border fees, and government-mandated taxes, which he did not pay, resulting in the total loss of his investment.
• Consequently, a case was registered at Patuli Police Station under Sections 318(4) (cheating) and 61(2) (criminal conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023
• The petitioner has filed the instant plea stating to be an innocent person who came to learn about the genesis of the present complicated situation arising out of the written complaint dated November 22, 2024, by a man.
• The petitioner claimed that he became aware of the present case through his bank, where he holds an account.
• He apprehended that he may be unjustly implicated or drawn into the proceedings and could be wrongly summoned by the investigating agency in connection with the matter.

Petitioner’s stand

• Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Rajdeep Majumdar argued that the allegations are absolutely vague and baseless, and the revisional application was filed on 30 January 2025.
• He further submitted that during the pendency of the proceeding, the investigating authority submitted the FRT in February 2025 due to a lack of materials to prove the charges.
• He argued that on September 6, 2025, the prayer made by the investigating officer before the learned court of Magistrate for further investigation was allowed, and the investigation was reopened.
• It is also submitted that after filing FRT, the date was fixed on June 3, 2025, and notice was issued to the de facto complainant on June 3, 2025, fixing the next date on February 9, 2026, for S/R and appearance.
• Meantime on the prayer made by the investigating authority, the prayer for further investigation was allowed.
• He further assailed that after filing of FRT in the absence of cogent materials, suddenly the investigating agency became prompt andan application was filed for passing a necessary direction to transfer the claim amount of Rs 1.58 lakh from the beneficiary account, which was at IndusInd Bank Barakhamba Branch on September 8, 2025.

Prosecution’s case

• For the prosecution, advocates Rudradipta Nandy and Santanu Talukdar submitted that the case was taken out for further investigation under order of superior on September 22, 2025, and it was found that the amount was transferred by the de-facto complainant from his bank account, to the different accounts as per instructions of the miscreants during the period from April 11, 2024 to June 23, 2024.
• They further argued that in the course of the investigation, 15 mobile numbers were registered in the name of the present petitioner and sent three notices to three different communicating addresses, but all the letters returned except one letter, and the petitioner did not come to this investigating agency for examination, which denotes that he is absconding and is evading the process of law.
• They submitted that the investigation is required to enquire into the fact, to know the flow of misappropriated funds, and to book the culprit in the instant case for investigation.