Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Transfer Cyber-Complaints Against Alleged Victim Of Fake Stock Market Investment Scheme

The Supreme Court today (January 10) dismissed a writ petition which sought the transfer of multiple cyber complaints filed against a petitioner, who claimed to be a victim of cyber fraud, to one authority.

In the writ petition, the petitioner alleged that three cyber complaints had been filed against him arising out of the same cause of action thereby, violating his fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also violating his right to a fair investigation. 

As per the writ petition, the petitioner became a victim of cybercrime by falling prey to the fake stock market investment scheme run by the cybercriminals through a WhatsApp group. The petition states: "The cybercriminals have not only cheated and defrauded the Petitioner of this hard-earned money through a fake stock market app but have also instituted false cyber complaints in different parts of the Country against him in order to extort more money from him. The Petitioner is a resident of Panipat, Haryana. He became the victim of the cyber-crime when he was residing in Panipat. His HDFC Bank Branch is in Panipat. The three cyber complaints filed against the Petitioner are with respect to the same transaction id and same cause of action and have been assigned to the Police Authorities in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Gujarat."

The petitioner prayed that since he has filed a complaint to the Police Authorities in Haryana in respect of the same cause of action, in the interest of justice all the three complaints arising out of the same cause of action be clubbed and investigated by one authority. 

Appearing before a bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and PB Varale, Advocate Akshay Mann argued that the petition fell prey to the stock market scheme which guaranteed "unrealistically high gains". He stated that the petitioner invested Rs 6,65,000 and within 2 days, he received unrealistically high profit. After receiving such a high profit, the petitioner became suspicious and sought his money back. It was given back in 3 transaction but after which, 3 cyber complaints were instituted against him.

However, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition. The order states: "We are not inclined to entertain a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India."

Case Details: SHAILENDER SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(Crl.) No. 9/2025

Appearances: Advocate Akshay Mann and AOR Sravan Kumar 

Click Here To Read Order