Calcutta High Court Upholds Investigation in Rs 85.80 Lakh Bitcoin Fraud Case
The Calcutta High Court has firmly dismissed a revision plea seeking to quash criminal proceedings in a significant bitcoin trading fraud case involving a loss of over Rs 85 lakhs. The court emphasized that a case of such substantial financial magnitude cannot be terminated based solely on a petitioner's apprehension of being unjustly implicated, especially when the investigation is still ongoing.
Court's Rationale for Dismissing the Quashing Plea
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das, presiding over the case, delivered the ruling on February 4, 2026. The court observed that the magistrate had not committed any illegality by permitting further investigation into the matter. The petitioner, who was not named in the original First Information Report (FIR), argued that the allegations were vague and baseless, and he feared wrongful implication.
"Only based on apprehension, a case involving more than 80 lakhs cannot be quashed specially when the investigation is still going on by the Anti-Fraud section, and the petitioner is not an FIR-named accused," the court stated unequivocally. This highlights the judiciary's stance on ensuring thorough probes in high-value financial crimes before considering any dismissal.
Background of the Bitcoin Trading Fraud
The case originated from a complaint filed by an individual who alleged that unknown accused persons induced him to invest in bitcoin trading through a company named Yotemo Currency Services. Between April and June 2024, the complainant transferred a total of Rs 85.80 lakhs to the accused via online transactions.
When the complainant attempted to withdraw his balance, he was met with demands for additional verification funds, cross-border fees, and government-mandated taxes. Refusing to pay these extra amounts, he suffered the complete loss of his investment. Consequently, a case was registered at Patuli Police Station under Sections 318(4) (cheating) and 61(2) (criminal conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
Petitioner's Claims and Legal Arguments
The petitioner filed the plea, asserting his innocence and claiming he became aware of the case through his bank, where he holds an account. He expressed apprehension about being unjustly implicated or summoned by the investigating agency. Represented by senior advocate Rajdeep Majumdar, the petitioner argued that the allegations were vague and baseless.
Key points from the petitioner's submission included:
- The revisional application was filed on January 30, 2025.
- During the proceedings, the investigating authority submitted a Final Report (FRT) in February 2025 due to insufficient evidence.
- However, on September 6, 2025, the magistrate allowed a prayer by the investigating officer for further investigation, reopening the case.
- The petitioner also contended that his account remained frozen even after the FRT was filed, and he criticized the investigating agency's sudden promptness in seeking to transfer funds post-FRT.
Prosecution's Counterarguments and Investigation Details
Advocates Rudradipta Nandy and Santanu Talukdar, representing the prosecution, presented compelling counterarguments. They revealed that the case was taken up for further investigation under superior orders on September 22, 2025. It was discovered that the complainant had transferred funds from his bank account to various accounts as per instructions from the miscreants between April 11, 2024, and June 23, 2024.
The prosecution further argued:
- Fifteen mobile numbers were registered in the petitioner's name during the investigation.
- Three notices were sent to different addresses, but only one was received, and the petitioner did not appear for examination, suggesting he was absconding and evading legal process.
- The investigation is crucial to trace the flow of misappropriated funds and identify the culprits involved in the fraud.
The court's decision underscores the importance of allowing investigative agencies to complete their work in complex financial fraud cases, particularly those involving emerging technologies like cryptocurrency. By refusing to quash the proceedings, the Calcutta High Court has reinforced the principle that justice requires diligent inquiry, especially when substantial public funds or investor money is at stake.
