The Supreme Court on Wednesday, 17 June refused to entertain a writ petition filed by a Bihar-based man accused in multiple cyber fraud cases across several states, with Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant delivering sharp oral remarks against cyber criminals, calling them 'parasites' who prey on innocent investors. The bench dismissed the plea seeking consolidation of First Information Reports (FIRs) registered in different states, directing the petitioner to approach the relevant High Courts instead.

What the Supreme Court Said

A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana came down heavily on cyber fraudsters during the hearing, observing that such offenders operate across state boundaries and systematically target unsuspecting investors nationwide.

'You people (cyber criminals) are parasites, and you take money from innocent investors and dupe them. For cyber criminals, we have to be very harsh,' the bench remarked orally.

The court further noted the cross-state nature of such crimes: 'You cheat someone in Tamil Nadu, then you go to Jammu and Kashmir and then to the North-East,' adding that it would be in society's interest that such offenders remain behind bars.

The Petition and Its Claims

The petitioner sought clubbing of FIRs registered in Bihar, Jammu and Kashmir, Tamil Nadu, and subsequently Karnataka, contending that all cases stemmed from the same alleged cyber fraud transactions routed through an ICICI Bank account opened in the name of M/s Ananya Engineering and Trading Ltd.

The plea claimed the petitioner was a matriculate with no knowledge of share trading, and had been induced by one Sanjay Singh — who allegedly introduced himself as an investment expert — to open the bank account. He contended the account was subsequently used by third parties without his knowledge, and that he neither operated it nor derived any benefit from the alleged fraudulent transactions.

Court's Order and Legal Reasoning

Relying on Supreme Court precedents dealing with multiple FIRs arising from the same transaction, the petitioner argued that separate investigations in different states exposed him to coercive action and repeated appearances before investigating agencies. The apex court, however, declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution.

'No case to entertain the writ petition has been made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed,' the order stated, granting the petitioner liberty to 'approach the jurisdictional High Court(s) for necessary relief(s)' if so advised. Advocates Anil Nag, Satyam Shekhar, Abhik Chandra, and Adnan appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

Context: CJI's Use of the Word 'Parasites'

Notably, this is not the first time CJI Surya Kant has used the term 'parasites' in oral remarks. Weeks earlier, in a separate matter, he had clarified that a prior use of the word was directed only at individuals who enter professions using fake or bogus degrees — and not at the youth of the country at large. He had stated that Indian youth were the 'pillars of a developed India' and held his deep respect and admiration. The latest usage, by contrast, was directed squarely at cyber criminals.

What Happens Next

With the Supreme Court declining to intervene, the petitioner must now navigate individual High Courts across the states where FIRs have been registered. The ruling reinforces the judiciary's position that cyber fraud accused cannot use the consolidation route as a shield against multi-state investigations. As digital financial crimes continue to surge across India, the bench's remarks signal that courts are unlikely to extend procedural relief to those accused of systematic fraud targeting retail investors.