Cyber Fraud Complaints Can’t Be Reduced to Private Complaints: P&H High Court Orders FIR in ₹19 Lakh Fake Job Scam Linked to Vistara
Case Name: Tata SIA Airlines Limited v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 22 May 2026
Citation: CRM-M-13847-2016
Bench: Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that where allegations disclose a sophisticated cyber fraud involving forged emails, impersonation, misuse of corporate servers, forged appointment letters, cheating of job aspirants, and possible involvement of unknown conspirators, the Magistrate should ordinarily direct police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. rather than convert the matter into a private complaint. The Court further held that such allegations require collection of electronic evidence and forensic investigation, which can only be effectively undertaken by the police.
Summary: The petitioner, Tata SIA Airlines Limited, operating under the brand Vistara, approached the High Court seeking registration of an FIR against a former employee and challenging an order of the Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram, which had treated its application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a private complaint instead of directing police investigation.
According to the company, respondent Sanjeev Kumar Kapoor was employed as Senior Manager (IT Lead – Program Delivery). In May 2015, information surfaced that job aspirants were being offered employment in return for monetary payments. An internal investigation allegedly revealed that the respondent had created fake email identities on the company’s official server infrastructure, forged appointment letters, fabricated official communications, impersonated senior company officials and induced candidates to pay money on false promises of employment. In one instance, a victim was allegedly defrauded of approximately ₹19 lakh.
The company claimed that despite submitting a detailed complaint supported by documentary and electronic evidence on 29 May 2015, the police neither registered an FIR nor initiated formal investigation. Instead, they continued conducting a prolonged preliminary inquiry. The Magistrate subsequently refused to direct registration of an FIR and treated the matter as a private complaint.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the allegations clearly disclosed cognizable offences involving cheating, forgery, impersonation and offences under the Information Technology Act. It was contended that tracing electronic footprints, retrieving server data, identifying unknown co-conspirators and preserving digital evidence could only be accomplished through police investigation and not through private complaint proceedings. Reliance was placed upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh.
The State and the private respondent opposed the petition, arguing that the Magistrate had exercised lawful discretion and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of revision against the impugned order.
The High Court first rejected the objection regarding maintainability. Relying upon Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan, the Court held that the existence of a revisional remedy does not bar the exercise of inherent jurisdiction where intervention is necessary to secure the ends of justice.
Examining the merits, the Court emphasized that a Magistrate is not mechanically bound to order registration of an FIR in every case. However, the discretion to convert an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. into a private complaint cannot be exercised where the allegations themselves necessitate police powers of investigation.
The Court observed that the allegations involved misuse of official email servers, creation of fictitious digital identities, forged appointment letters, impersonation of corporate officials, financial fraud against job aspirants and possible involvement of unidentified persons. Such allegations disclosed cognizable offences relating to cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust, impersonation and cyber offences.
Significantly, the Court noted that crucial evidence such as server logs, metadata, IP addresses, banking records, digital devices and communications was not within the complainant’s control. Discovery and preservation of such evidence required statutory investigative powers vested only in the police. Relegating the complainant to lead preliminary evidence in a complaint case would effectively require production of material beyond its legal reach.
The High Court further found fault with both the police and the Magistrate. Despite allegations disclosing cognizable offences, the police continued with an inquiry instead of registering an FIR. Simultaneously, the Magistrate closed the investigative route while the inquiry was still pending and provided no reasons explaining why police investigation was unnecessary despite the cyber and forensic dimensions of the allegations.
Relying upon the principles laid down in Lalita Kumari, the Court reiterated that registration of an FIR is the statutory rule once information discloses commission of a cognizable offence. A preliminary inquiry cannot be converted into a mini-investigation or a substitute for a formal criminal investigation.
Decision: The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the petition, quashed the Magistrate’s order dated 28 October 2015, and directed the Haryana Police to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint dated 29 May 2015 under the appropriate penal provisions. The Court further directed that an independent, fair and uninfluenced investigation be conducted in accordance with law.