In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, dismissed a writ petition filed by Mahendra Pratap Srivastava, popularly known as “Zoom Baba,”
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b3dc7/b3dc7c20fd9ac27de38faca88d79122696047559" alt="Zoom Baba's Plea to Quash FIR Dismissal by Allahabad High Court Zoom Baba's Plea to Quash FIR Dismissal by Allahabad High Court"
The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, recently dismissed a writ petition filed by Mahendra Pratap Srivastava, popularly known as “Zoom Baba,” seeking to quash an FIR registered against him in connection with the Ruby Coin cryptocurrency fraud.
The FIR, filed at Police Station Shushant Golf City, Lucknow, accuses Srivastava of offenses under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 66 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The petitioner, who sought the quashing of the FIR and protection from arrest, is a trainer engaged in educating members of the Ruby Coin Community about blockchain and cryptocurrency, his counsel stated.
However, the State argued that Srivastava was an active participant in the fraudulent scheme. According to the investigation report, he was a board member of the Elite Club and played a huge role in persuading investors to buy Ruby Coin, a cryptocurrency being promoted by the main accused, Samir Keshari.
It was further submitted by the prosecution that Srivastava used to conduct multiple Zoom meetings to advise and influence people to invest in Ruby Coin, which earned him the nickname “Zoom Baba.” The State maintained that Srivastava’s purported resignation did not negate his liability, as the fraudulent activities occurred during his tenure with the company.
A division bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Brij Raj Singh, while examining the FIR and the materials presented by the investigating officer, noted the serious nature of the allegations against the petitioner. The court stated that the facts alleged in the FIR clearly indicated Srivastava’s role in luring investors into the fraudulent cryptocurrency program.
In the absence of any material illegality in the FIR, which disclosed a cognizable offense, the High Court held that there was no legal basis to quash the FIR. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed by the bench.