Bengaluru: In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has refused to grant relief to three accused allegedly involved in a multi-crore financial fraud spanning several major cities. The Court dismissed petitions seeking to quash 11 separate criminal cases, making it clear that there can be no interference in the investigation at this stage.
The case revolves around an alleged organised fraud network in which the accused targeted individuals in urgent need of funds. They reportedly lured victims by promising to facilitate loans and arrange large sums of money, only to cheat them through deceptive means. The three accused named in the case are Roshan Saldanha, his wife Dafney Neethu D’Souza, and N Chandrashekhar.
FCRF Launches Premier CISO Certification Amid Rising Demand for Cybersecurity Leadership
In its order, the Court emphasised that the matter is still at a preliminary stage of investigation, and quashing First Information Reports (FIRs) at this juncture would be contrary to well-established legal principles. It observed that an FIR is not a conclusion of guilt but merely the starting point of a criminal investigation, which must proceed unhindered.
According to the complaints, the accused followed a consistent modus operandi. They allegedly identified individuals facing financial distress, approached them with assurances of resolving their problems, and claimed they could arrange fund transfers into their accounts. These promises, however, were allegedly part of a calculated scheme to defraud.
The complaints further suggest that multiple shell or bogus companies were used to lend an appearance of legitimacy to the transactions. Through these entities, the accused allegedly created a facade of genuine financial dealings while executing a structured fraud.
The scale of the alleged scam is reflected in the geographical spread of victims. Complaints have been filed by individuals from cities such as Mumbai, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, and regions in Kerala, indicating a wide operational network. Victims have accused the trio of cheating them out of substantial amounts under false pretences.
The Court also highlighted that this is not a case involving a single complainant or transaction. Instead, there are 11 distinct complaints from different individuals, all pointing to a similar pattern of conduct by the accused. In such circumstances, the argument that the dispute is purely civil in nature cannot be accepted at face value.
During the hearing, the defence argued that the matter pertains to civil transactions and lacks the ingredients of a criminal offence. It was also contended that the bank accounts into which funds were transferred had no direct link to the accused.
Rejecting these submissions, the Court held that such contentions require detailed examination during the investigation process. It stressed that when multiple victims raise similar allegations, halting the probe would not serve the interests of justice.
The Court further underlined the seriousness of the accusations, noting that the alleged acts involve deceiving individuals and causing financial loss. Given the gravity and the number of complaints, it ruled that there was no justification to stall the investigation.
With this order, it is now clear that the accused will have to face the ongoing probe, and no immediate legal relief is available to them. Investigating agencies are expected to continue examining the case to uncover the full extent of the alleged fraud, including the total amount involved and the number of victims affected.
The case once again highlights the growing trend of financial scams carried out under the guise of easy loans and quick funding solutions. The Court’s firm stance reinforces the principle that in cases involving alleged large-scale economic offences, early intervention to quash proceedings is rarely warranted, especially when the investigation is still underway.
