Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to quash an FIR in a cyber fraud case despite a settlement between the accused and the complainant, holding that payment of compensation cannot by itself bring criminal proceedings to an end. The case involved an alleged fraud of ₹99,461 linked to a credit card offer.
Proposal for Conducting Cyber Crisis Drill, Tabletop Exercise (TTEx) & CCMP Readiness Exercise
What Was the Cyber Fraud Case?
The case arose from a complaint by Sushil Kumar, who reported that he received a phone call on August 20, 2025, from a person asking whether he was interested in obtaining a credit card from a particular bank.
Kumar later received a WhatsApp link from a phone number and allegedly entered his mother’s name and details of his own credit card. A form then appeared on his phone.
An application was subsequently downloaded on the device and he began receiving OTPs. A total of ₹99,461 was allegedly deducted from his account. An FIR was registered on August 22, 2025.
Why Did the Accused Seek to Quash the FIR?
The accused later approached the court seeking quashing of the FIR after reaching a compromise with the complainant.
Their counsel argued that the FIR had initially been registered against unknown persons and did not directly attribute any overt act of cyber fraud to his client. It was also argued that the dispute had been amicably resolved and continuing the trial would prejudice both sides and affect the future prospects of the accused.
The complainant had acknowledged satisfaction after the accused agreed to compensate him.
Why Was the Settlement Opposed?
The request to quash the FIR was opposed on the ground that the investigation had identified three other people who were still to be established, while five people were said to have been involved in the crime.
It was also argued that a cybercrime case could not be treated simply as a personal dispute and that criminal proceedings should not be terminated solely because the parties had reached a compromise.
Why Did the Court Call It a Partial Compromise?
Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal described the settlement as a matter of “partial compromise”, noting that three other accused had not yet been arrested.
The court observed that online frauds are committed across the country and affect unsuspecting victims as well as society at large. It also noted that offenders use sophisticated technological methods, making detection and recovery of proceeds increasingly difficult.
Why Did the Court Refuse to Quash the Case?
The court held that the alleged offence could not be confined to an individual or personal wrong. It said compensation paid to a victim could not provide the basis for quashing criminal proceedings through the court’s inherent powers.
The widespread use of digital platforms, the court observed, has increased the scale and speed of cybercrime. It therefore rejected the argument that the alleged offence could be treated as private in nature.
What Did the Court Say About Cybercrime?
The court observed that cybercrimes undermine confidence in digital transactions and affect the integrity of financial systems. It described such offences as a growing threat because of the pace and scale at which they can spread.
It further held that cybercrime has a wider societal impact and that quashing the FIR in such circumstances would be contrary to the interests of justice and society.
The420 Takeaway: A Refund Does Not Erase the Case
The ruling draws an important distinction between compensating an individual victim and addressing the wider consequences of cyber fraud. Even when the victim receives money and agrees to settle, the alleged offence may still affect public confidence in digital transactions and society at large.
The case shows why a financial settlement alone may not necessarily bring cybercrime proceedings to an end.
About the author — Ayesha Aayat writes on cybercrime, digital safety, and emerging online threats. Her work focuses on public awareness, legal clarity, and technology-driven risks.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
