Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has held that a Magistrate is legally empowered to permit further investigation even after submission of a final report, so long as criminal proceedings remain pending, and that such power cannot be curtailed merely on the basis of apprehension expressed by a person not named in the FIR.
The judgement by Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das dismissed a petition seeking quashing of proceedings arising from an alleged Rs 85.8-lakh bitcoin investment fraud. The petitioner, who was not named in the FIR, claimed that he feared being unjustly implicated or summoned during investigation.
The case originated from a complaint alleging that unknown persons induced the complainant to invest money in bitcoin trading through an entity styled as “Yotemo Currency Services Company”, assuring high returns. Between April 11 and June 23, 2024, the complainant transferred Rs 85.8 lakh through online transactions. Although the account allegedly showed an accumulated balance, he was not permitted full withdrawal and was asked to pay additional amounts described as verification funds, cross-border fees and government-mandated taxes to retrieve the money. No return was received.
Police submitted a final report citing a lack of sufficient material. While the matter remained pending before the Magistrate and notice had been issued to the complainant, the investigating agency sought permission to conduct further investigation, which was allowed.
The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court, arguing that further investigation could not be permitted after submission of a final report and before a decision on its acceptance, and that certain bank accounts continued to remain frozen.
Rejecting the plea, the court held that further investigation is distinct from reinvestigation and only supplements the earlier probe. It noted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and relied solely on apprehension, which cannot justify quashing proceedings, particularly in a case involving alleged financial fraud exceeding Rs 80 lakh.
The court also recorded the prosecution’s submission that further investigation revealed fund transfers to multiple bank accounts, several mobile numbers registered in the petitioner’s name, and that notices sent to him largely remained unanswered.
Finding no illegality or abuse of process, the court dismissed the petition and allowed the investigation to continue. No order as to costs was passed.