Jodhpur: <\/strong>The Rajasthan High Court has refused to quash a second FIR against several accused after an investigation into a cheating case allegedly uncovered a larger cyber-fraud operation involving multiple victims, bank accounts, Forex\/USDT transactions and properties allegedly acquired from fraud proceeds. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, observing that the material collected during investigation disclosed allegations involving multiple bank accounts, Forex\/USDT transactions, numerous cyber-fraud complaints and acquisition of properties allegedly from the proceeds of crime. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Earlier FIR Was for Individual Cheating; Second FIR Alleged Wider Cyber Fraud<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case began with FIR No. 38\/2025, based on a complaint alleging cheating of a substantial amount. During its investigation, police searched the accused’s premises and allegedly recovered cash, ATM cards, laptops, computers, mobile phones, cheque books, rubber stamps and property documents. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The investigation subsequently allegedly linked several bank accounts and mobile numbers associated with the accused to multiple cyber-fraud complaints. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The prosecution alleged that the accused were involved in Forex trading through Cappmorefx, inducing people to invest money with promises of high returns, and conducting Forex\/USDT transactions through online platforms, including Telegram. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The money was allegedly transferred through different bank accounts and used to buy properties. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The accused argued that FIR No. 46\/2025 was an impermissible second FIR concerning the same transaction. They also contended that since the original alleged occurrence related to 2023, provisions of the BNS could not be invoked. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The State opposed the plea, submitting that the second FIR arose from distinct and substantially wider criminal activity revealed during the investigation, including alleged links to numerous cyber-fraud complaints. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court reiterated that ordinarily a second FIR cannot be registered for the same incident or transaction merely on the basis of further information emerging during investigation. However, a separate FIR is permissible where subsequent information discloses a distinct incident, wider criminal activity or larger conspiracy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Applying this principle, the Court held that the present FIR was materially wider than the individual cheating transaction forming the basis of the earlier FIR and that the investigation had prima facie revealed a larger cyber-fraud conspiracy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court said ATM cards or electronic devices alone do not prove organised crime, but the wider evidence of cyber-fraud complaints, bank accounts and financial transactions required investigation. It said the High Court cannot conduct a \u201cmini-trial\u201d at the FIR stage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cFIR Is Not an Encyclopaedia\u201d: Court<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court further held that at the investigation stage, it could not conduct a mini-trial or undertake detailed appreciation of evidence. Where the allegations prima facie discloses cognizable offences, the investigation should ordinarily be allowed to continue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court dismissed the petitions and declined to quash FIR.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cWider Cyber Crime\u201d Can Justify Fresh FIR: Rajasthan HC Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has refused to quash a second FIR against several accused after an investigation into a cheating case allegedly uncovered a larger cyber-fraud operation involving multiple victims, bank accounts, Forex\/USDT transactions and properties allegedly acquired from fraud proceeds. Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":9321,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_wppp_is_locked":false,"_wppp_selected_plans":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[29,69],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9320","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-top-stories","category-rajasthan-high-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9320","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9320"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9320\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9322,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9320\/revisions\/9322"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9321"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9320"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9320"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9320"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}