Case Note & Summary
Background: The petitioner, a 23-year-old Kazakhstani national, filed a criminal writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa seeking to quash FIR No. 8/2025 and the consequential chargesheet No. 4/2025 (Case No. 65/2025) pending before the Sessions Court at Merces. The FIR was registered on 13 March 2025 by Cyber Crime Police Station, Ribandar, Goa for offences under Sections 143(3), 318(4), 61(2), 60 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 10 and 24 of the Emigration Act, 1983, and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Facts: According to prosecution allegations, from 28 December 2024 to 21 February 2025, accused persons impersonated using computer sources and induced victims, including one Cheitan Murgaonkar, with offers of employment in Thailand at Rs 60,000 monthly without a valid recruitment agent certificate. Victims were sent to Thailand and forced into cyber call centre work targeting US citizens for fake trading scams and honey trapping. Accused 1 and 2 also allegedly set up a simbox mobile frequency router in Bangalore to route cyber fraud calls. Investigation details in the reply affidavit showed that email ID tysonjain9008@gmail.com was linked to phone number 8072540508, which was allotted to Accused 1 Aditya Ravichandran. Accused 1 disclosed that he was instructed via Telegram accounts 'WIZI' and 'Berlin' by the petitioner, who impersonated those identities. Petitioner allegedly visited Accused 1's residence in Bangalore for two to three days, his photograph was found in Accused 1's mobile, and hospital bills recovered from Accused 1 showed petitioner had been admitted to a local hospital in Bangalore. Hotel records revealed no person named Berlin and that the actual name was Talaniti Nulaxi, a Kazakhstan national with passport N17343583 issued on 13 November 2024. A look out circular was issued, and petitioner was apprehended at New Delhi Airport while attempting to exit to Sharjah and Istanbul. Notice under Section 35 BNS was served, he refused to sign, and he was brought to Goa. Mobile scrutiny showed petitioner's mobile connected to Accused 1's wifi '3rd floor 5G', indicating he visited the PG rooms. Legal Issues: Whether the chargesheet and FIR disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner; whether prosecution evidence is sufficient to connect him to the offences; and whether continued proceedings violate Article 21. Arguments: Petitioner contended that no statement, documentary or electronic evidence established his role beyond a photograph with a co-accused and that no ingredient of any offence was made out. Respondents relied on the investigation affidavit detailing co-accused disclosure, hotel records, passport identity, Telegram impersonation, and wifi connectivity. Court's Analysis: The court heard both sides, made Rule returnable forthwith by consent, and heard finally; it recorded the allegations and investigation details from the reply affidavit. The provided excerpt does not include the final analysis or order. Decision: Final decision not available in the provided text; Rule was made returnable forthwith and matter heard finally.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR and Chargesheet - Abuse of Process - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 143(3), 318(4), 61(2), 60 and 3(5); Emigration Act, 1983 Sections 10 and 24; Information Technology Act, 2000 Section 66D - Petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 8/2025 and Chargesheet No. 4/2025 alleging that no statement, documentary or electronic evidence established his role beyond a photograph with a co-accused. Respondents relied on investigation showing co-accused disclosure that petitioner impersonated Telegram handlers 'Berlin' and 'WIZI', hotel records revealing his real name and passport details, and wifi connectivity to co-accused's premises. Court made Rule returnable forthwith and heard both sides; final quashing order not mentioned in excerpt. Held that parties were heard and Rule made returnable forthwith (Paras 1-6). B) Constitutional Law - Right to Life and Personal Liberty - Article 21 of Constitution of India - Foreign national petitioner invoked Article 21 contending that continued prosecution without evidence violates liberty; court considered the submission alongside prosecution's material. Final constitutional determination not provided in excerpt. Held that Article 21 safeguard was urged but not ruled on in available text (Paras 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR and chargesheet against the petitioner for offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Emigration Act, 1983 and Information Technology Act, 2000 should be quashed for lack of material evidence; whether continued proceedings violate Article 21 of Constitution.
Law Points
- Quashing of FIR and chargesheet
- abuse of process
- prima facie case
- Article 21 of Constitution
- ingredients of offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023
- Emigration Act 1983
- Information Technology Act 2000
