1 2025:CGHC:37854-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 437 of 2025 Anusuiya Sandilya D/o Late Shri Tilak Ram Aged About 39 Years R/o- Village- Devermal, P.S.- Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 Union Of India Through Ministry Of Home Affairs (MHA) New Delhi, Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4c), New Delhi 2 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Ministry Of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 State Of Karnataka Through Ministry Of Home Affairs, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore, Karnataka 4 Cyber Economic And Narcotic Crime Police Station East Division, Bangalore, City, Karnataka 5 Director General Of Police (Dgp) Chhattisgarh Police Headquarters, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 6 Director General Of Police Karnataka, Karnataka State Police Head Quarters, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore Karnataka JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.08.02 12:29:26 +0530 2 7 Suprintendent Of Police Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.) 8 Police Station Incharge P.S- Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.) 9 Cyber Cell Sakti District - Sakti (C.G.) 10 Officer Incharge Police Station Pulikeshinagar, Bangalore City Karanataka 11 Gurunath Jangde S/o Shyam Lal Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kapu, Block- Dharamjaigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Mahima Chandra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 01.08.2025 1. Heard Ms. Mahima Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Dy. A.G. for respondents/State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for following relief:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased direct that the investigation be conducted in one place, Chhattisgarh, where the Petitioner resides and cause of action arose, in the interest of Justice. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Direct the respondents not to proceed with 3 multiple or parallel investigations in the Same matter, to avoid abuse of process of law. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner runs a charitable organization named Jivandayini Sathi Foundation situated in Kapu, block-Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh and the organization has an account in IDFC bank which is operated in the joint name of the petitioner and respondent No. 10. Further, the bank pass book, ATM card, Cheque book and other documents which belong to the IDFC Branch, Pathalgaon were lost in Sakti on 01.06.2025. The report of the same was lodged on 02.06.2025. Thereafter, there were transaction from the account by some unknown person and about 40 lakhs were debited. FIR of the same was lodged by the petitioner at the Police Station and cyber cell Sakti, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (CG) on 18.06.2025 and by respondent No. 10 lodged the report before the Investigating Officer Pulikeshinagar, Banglore City (Karnataka) on 29.06.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unauthorized and illegal financial transactions were carried out from the foundations official bank account without consent or knowledge, authorization of the petitioner or the trust, amounting to criminal breach of the trust, forgery and misappropriation of charitable funds. She further submits that for the same incident an FIR has been lodged in C.G. and on similar allegations, an FIR bearing Crime No. 231/2025 4 has also been registered in East CEN Crime Police Station, East Division, Bangalore, Karnataka. She further contended that parallel investigations by different police authorities will result in confusion, harassment and violation of fundamental rights and may lead to conflicting findings and miscarriage of justice. She further submits that a circular has been issued by Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre that in cases where the same bank account or same phone number is involved in cyber frauds across multiple states, the investigation should be centralized under one jurisdiction to ensure uniformity and avoid duplication of investigation and enable beneficent prosecution. Therefore, she prays that investigation be conducted in one place i.e. Chhattisgarh. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel oppose the argument made. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. Bare perusal of the documents shows that the matter relates to huge financial transactions from the account of the organization without his consent by unknown persons. Further, it transpires that for the same issue investigation is going on at Chhattisgarh and also at Bangalore (Karnataka) which are different states. 8. It is a trite law that when transferring cases between different High Courts or of the States is concerned, the jurisdiction lies with the 5 Hon’ble Supreme Court under sections 25 of the CPC or Section 406 of CrPC. But it does not clothe the Court with the power to transfer investigations from one police station to another in the country. In the matter of Dr. Ram Chander Singh Sagar and Another v State of Tamil Nadu and Another reported in (1978) 2 SCC 35 the Supreme Court categorically held that even it has no power to transfer the case during investigation stage. It further held that redress should be sought from the Court seized with the matter. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is not maintainable before this court and hence is dismissed at motion stage. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ $ Bhilwar