Zoom Baba呼籲阿拉哈巴德高等法院解僱FIR

在最近的一項裁決中，阿拉哈巴德高等法院勒克瑙（Lucknow Bench）駁回了Mahendra Pratap Srivastava提交的書面請願書，該請願書被稱為“ Zoom Baba”，

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.

阿拉哈巴德高等法院勒克瑙（Lucknow）替補席最近駁回了Mahendra Pratap Srivastava提交的書面請願書，該請願書（通常稱為“ Zoom Baba”）尋求與Ruby Coin Coin Cryptocorrency欺詐有關的FIR撤向。

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.

FIR在勒克瑙（Lucknow）的警察局提起訴訟，指控Srivastava根據第409、420、467、468、471和120B條的罪行，以及1961年《收入稅法》第66條。

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.

他的律師說，請願人尋求對FIR和防止逮捕的保護，是一名培訓師，他從事Ruby Coin社區成員的教育有關區塊鍊和加密貨幣的教育。

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.

但是，該州認為Srivastava是欺詐計劃的積極參與者。根據調查報告，他是精英俱樂部的董事會成員，並在說服投資者購買Ruby Coin方面發揮了重要作用，這是由主要被告Samir Keshari促進的加密貨幣。

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.

起訴進一步提出，斯里瓦斯塔瓦（Srivastava）曾經舉辦多次Zoom會議，以建議和影響人們投資Ruby Coin，這為他贏得了“ Zoom Baba”的暱稱。該州堅持認為，斯里瓦斯塔瓦（Srivastava）聲稱的辭職並沒有承擔責任，因為欺詐性活動發生在他任職期間。

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.

Sangeeta Chandra大法官和Brij Raj Singh法官的司法院審查了調查官的FIR和材料時，指出了針對請願人的指控的嚴重性質。法院指出，在FIR中所指控的事實清楚地表明，Srivastava在吸引投資者進入欺詐性加密貨幣計劃中的作用。

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.

在FIR中沒有任何重大非法性的情況下，該案件揭示了可識別的罪行，高等法院認為沒有法律依據來撤銷FIR。因此，令狀請願書被法官駁回。