FIR quashing in cyber crime cases

Section 528 BNSS — the inherent powers, renumbered

The inherent powers of the High Court, long familiar as Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, are now contained in Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The text is substantially identical, which is why the entire body of case law on quashing, abuse of process and the ends of justice continues to apply without interruption.

The renumbering matters in drafting. Since Section 482 BNSS is now anticipatory bail, a petition filed under Section 482 expecting to invoke inherent powers is invoking the wrong provision entirely. Where the FIR predates 1 July 2024, the old CrPC numbering governs it, so both the date of the FIR and the correct provision have to be settled before anything is drafted.

When a cyber FIR can be quashed

The FIR discloses no offence

Where the allegations, taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do not make out the ingredients of the offences invoked. This arises frequently in cyber matters because cheating under Section 318 BNS requires deception together with dishonest intention at the time of the inducement, and Section 66D of the IT Act requires personation using a computer resource. An FIR that alleges only that money reached an account, without alleging any deception by the account holder, is open to this challenge.

The dispute is essentially civil or commercial

A failed business transaction dressed up as cheating is one of the most common categories in quashing jurisprudence. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that for cheating to be made out, dishonest intention must exist at the time of the inducement, not be inferred from a subsequent breach. Trade disputes in Karnal, Panipat and Yamunanagar that migrate into cyber FIRs because the correspondence travelled by email frequently fall here.

The proceeding is an abuse of process

Where the FIR is malicious, is being used as leverage in a family, matrimonial or commercial dispute, or duplicates a matter already pending. Multiple FIRs in different states on an identical transaction chain can also raise this ground.

The parties have settled

Where the offences are predominantly personal and compoundable and a genuine settlement has been reached, the High Court can quash the FIR on that basis. This is why quashing matters even to someone who has already resolved things with the complainant: a settlement does not by itself remove a pending case from the record, and that record surfaces later in police verification for government employment, visas and licensing.

What quashing cannot do

It is not a substitute for a trial and it is not a way to have disputed facts decided. The High Court will not weigh evidence or assess the reliability of witnesses at this stage. Where the FIR does disclose the ingredients of an offence and the case genuinely turns on what happened, the answer is a defence at trial rather than a quashing petition. Filing a hopeless petition also costs time that would be better spent on bail or on the account.

What the petition needs

• The FIR, and the charge sheet if one has been filed.
• The complete documentary record of the transaction the complaint arises from.
• Communications between the parties, particularly anything showing a commercial relationship.
• The settlement or compromise deed, where the matter has been resolved.
• Details of any parallel FIR on the same facts, in any state.
• The status of the investigation and of any bail already granted.

Practical sequence

Quashing is rarely the first step. In most cyber matters the order is: secure liberty first through anticipatory bail or regular bail; deal with any frozen account, because that is what is causing immediate damage; and then consider quashing once the shape of the case and the material against you are clear. Moving out of that order occasionally makes sense, but it should be a decision taken for a reason.