“To every dreamer chasing quick riches, it is a wake-up call. Easy money is a trap. If the returns sound unbelievable, believe this instead: you are next in line to pay the price.”

Betting on Easy Money? Don’t Expect Courts to Bail You Out, Says High Court

The420 Web Desk
3 Min Read

The ruling arose in the case of Yogesh Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., where a complainant alleged cheating after investing ₹1.5 crore in 2016 on the assurance of 24 percent annual returns. When the accused failed to pay either the promised interest or return the principal, the investor approached the police. A first information report was filed, but the court noted that the FIR itself appeared to be an abuse of process, as the allegations stemmed from a failed financial arrangement rather than a criminal act.

Data Protection and DPDP Act Readiness: Hundreds of Senior Leaders Sign Up for CDPO Program

Investor or Gambler? Court Draws the Line

Justice Monga questioned whether investors knowingly entering such schemes could be treated as victims at all. He likened them to gamblers who cheer when they win but run to the law when they lose. “You cannot bet your money on wild promises and then run to the law crying victim when the bet goes bad,” he observed. The Court stressed that offering unsecured loans for extraordinarily high returns placed investors in a space between speculation and recklessness.

Greed, Gullibility, and the Limits of Law

In one of the ruling’s strongest passages, the Court called greed “a silent crime against wisdom.” It warned that when individuals ignore due diligence and chase profits far above market norms, they cannot later demand sympathy. “Fraudsters must be punished, yes — but should courts become shelters for reckless risk-takers?” Justice Monga asked. The judgment pointed out that promises of returns as high as 24 percent annually should trigger suspicion, not investment.

Failures in Investigation and a Broader Warning

The High Court also expressed displeasure with Delhi Police for an investigation that dragged on for nearly six years without progress. The absence of substantive evidence and unexplained delays, it said, reflected negligence and undermined the case. Ultimately, the court quashed the FIR, concluding that it was a contractual dispute masquerading as a criminal offence. Ending on a broader note, Justice Monga cautioned: “To every dreamer chasing quick riches — it is a wake-up call. Easy money is a trap. If the returns sound unbelievable, believe this instead: you are next in line to pay the price.”

Stay Connected