Zoom Baba呼吁阿拉哈巴德高等法院解雇FIR

在最近的一项裁决中，阿拉哈巴德高等法院勒克瑙（Lucknow Bench）驳回了Mahendra Pratap Srivastava提交的书面请愿书，该请愿书被称为“ 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）替补席最近驳回了Mahendra Pratap Srivastava提交的书面请愿书，该请愿书（通常称为“ Zoom Baba”）寻求与Ruby Coin Coin Cryptocorrency欺诈有关的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）的警察局提起诉讼，指控Srivastava根据第409、420、467、468、471和120B条的罪行，以及1961年《收入税法》第66条。

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.

他的律师说，请愿人寻求对FIR和防止逮捕的保护，是一名培训师，他从事Ruby Coin社区成员的教育有关区块链和加密货币的教育。

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，该州认为Srivastava是欺诈计划的积极参与者。根据调查报告，他是精英俱乐部的董事会成员，并在说服投资者购买Ruby Coin方面发挥了重要作用，这是由主要被告Samir Keshari促进的加密货币。

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.

起诉进一步提出，斯里瓦斯塔瓦（Srivastava）曾经举办多次Zoom会议，以建议和影响人们投资Ruby Coin，这为他赢得了“ Zoom Baba”的昵称。该州坚持认为，斯里瓦斯塔瓦（Srivastava）声称的辞职并没有承担责任，因为欺诈性活动发生在他任职期间。

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法官的司法院审查了调查官的FIR和材料时，指出了针对请愿人的指控的严重性质。法院指出，在FIR中所指控的事实清楚地表明，Srivastava在吸引投资者进入欺诈性加密货币计划中的作用。

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中没有任何重大非法性的情况下，该案件揭示了可识别的罪行，高等法院认为没有法律依据来撤销FIR。因此，令状请愿书被法官驳回。