The Calcutta High Court declined to quash criminal proceedings in a case involving an alleged cryptocurrency investment fraud worth over ₹85 lakh. The court held that when an investigation is still ongoing and the petitioner is not even named in the FIR, interference at an early stage is not justified. The order was passed by Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das while dismissing a criminal revisional application filed by Arup Mondal.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from a complaint filed by one Shankar Aditya, who alleged that he was lured into investing money in bitcoin trading through a company called Yotemo Currency Services. According to the complaint, unknown persons convinced him to invest between April and June 2024, promising unusually high returns.
Read also:- Supreme Court Sets Aside J&K High Court Order in NRI Custody Fight, Sends Case Back for Fresh Decision
Believing the claims, the complainant transferred approximately ₹85.80 lakh through online transactions. However, when he attempted to withdraw his funds, he was allegedly asked to deposit additional amounts under the pretext of verification charges, cross-border fees and government taxes. The complainant refused to pay further money and did not receive any return from the investment.
Arup Mondal, the petitioner, approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings. He claimed he was innocent and became aware of the case only after his bank informed him about possible involvement. He expressed apprehension that he could be wrongly implicated by the investigating agency.
Arguments Presented by the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the proceedings were initiated with mala fide intention and lacked specific allegations against his client. It was highlighted that Mondal’s name did not appear in the original complaint.
Read also:- Supreme Court Sets Aside Madras HC Order, Says High Courts Can’t Strike Off Plaint When CPC Remedy Exists
The defence further pointed out that the investigating authority had initially filed a Final Report citing lack of material evidence. Later, the Magistrate allowed further investigation before deciding whether to accept or reject the report. The petitioner argued that this step was legally improper and prejudicial to him.
It was also contended that the investigating agency suddenly became active after filing the Final Report and sought to transfer funds frozen in a bank account to the complainant. According to the petitioner, such steps showed procedural irregularity.
State’s Stand
Opposing the plea, the State submitted that further investigation was initiated following directions from higher authorities. During the probe, it was found that money had been transferred across multiple bank accounts in different banks following instructions of alleged fraudsters.
Investigators also discovered that 15 mobile numbers were registered in the petitioner’s name. Notices were sent to him at multiple addresses, but most were returned, and he did not appear before investigators. The State argued that investigation was necessary to trace the flow of funds and identify all persons involved in the alleged fraud.
Court’s Observations
The High Court examined several Supreme Court rulings dealing with the powers of courts and police to conduct further investigation after submission of a final report.
Referring to settled legal principles, the court noted that further investigation is considered a continuation of the earlier probe and not a fresh or independent investigation. The court observed that magistrates possess wide powers to ensure proper investigation even after receiving a final report.
“The Magistrate’s power… is very wide, for it is this judicial authority that must be satisfied that a proper investigation by the police takes place,” the court noted while referring to precedent.
The court emphasised that police can collect additional evidence while the matter remains pending before the court. It also clarified that delay or earlier submission of a closure report does not automatically prevent further investigation if fresh materials emerge.
Importantly, the court observed that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and had approached the court merely on apprehension that he might be implicated later.
Court’s Decision
The High Court held that allowing further investigation in the case did not amount to any legal irregularity. The court also ruled that criminal proceedings involving alleged fraud of more than ₹80 lakh could not be quashed merely based on apprehension, particularly when investigation by the anti-fraud wing was still underway.
Rejecting the plea, the bench stated that at the present stage there was no ground to interfere with the ongoing investigation or quash the complaint.
The criminal revisional application was dismissed, and the court passed no order as to costs.
Case Title: Arup Mondal vs State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case No.: CRR 493 of 2025
Decision Date: 04 April 2026
