New Delhi, Oct. 28: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said those operating “digital arrest” extortion scams must be dealt with ruthlessly, describing them as “ruthless criminals” engaged in “digital dacoity” through video calls, particularly targeting vulnerable senior citizens and retirees.
Chief Justice Surya Kant, heading a bench also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, said: “Extortion is the simplest offence. This (digital arrest scams), in our considered opinion, is digital dacoity. You do it through video calls.”
Calling for a stringent response to such organised cybercrime, the CJI added: “They must be dealt with in the most ruthless manner. If the law has any scope to punish them before trial, that must also be adopted.”
The observations came while the court was hearing a petition seeking consolidation of FIRs registered in different States in connection with an alleged digital-arrest extortion network.
The petitioners, who are accused in one of the cybercrime cases, claimed that they too were victims and that their company bank account had unwittingly been used as a “mule account”. Their counsel submitted that a complaint had also been lodged with the Jammu and Kashmir authorities after the alleged fraud was discovered.
They argued that since Delhi Police’s Mandir Marg Cyber Police was already investigating the receipt and layering of funds, multiple investigations in different States would cause prejudice.
The bench was not persuaded. It observed that investigations should ordinarily remain connected with the places where individual victims had suffered the alleged fraud and that the convenience of accused persons could not override the interests of victims or independent investigations by State police forces.
Justice Bagchi also cautioned that the petitioners could not be allowed to become an instrument for derailing investigations across the country, observing that consolidation could not be allowed to stall separate probes arising from individual complaints.
After the bench made it clear that it was not inclined to interfere with the separate investigations being conducted in different States, the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the plea. The Court accordingly permitted the withdrawal.
Pramod kumar is a Senior Journalist, Covering Supreem Court of India
