The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash the criminal proceedings against four persons who were among several accused persons involved in a cyber fraud case for allegedly duping a businessman of ₹7.15 crore by promising him a loan of ₹225 crore from State Bank of India (SBI) and opening a fake account in his name in the name of Corporate of SBI using a fake SBI website.
Terming the criminal case as “akin to a crime thriller or a crime pot”, the court observed how the accused persons created a fake website in the name of SBIFC, generated fake emails and one-time passwords (OTPs) to make the complainant believe that the loan offer was from the corporate finance branch of ‘SBI’.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while dismissing a petition filed by K. Balajee, a resident of Dindigul in Tamil Nadu; Sr. Jeevan Sebaratnam, who is originally from Sri Lanka, holds German citizenship and resides in the United Kingdom and Bengaluru; Vinay Kumar Agarwal, a city businessman, and Simia Fathia, a resident of Chennai in Tamil Nadu.
Bengaluru city police registered a case in 2022 based on a complaint filed by Vinayak Kabadi, a businessman from Betageri in Gadag district.
The court noted that the prime accused, Muzib Abdul Mian alias Niyaz, also from Tamil Nadu, was similarly involved in cheating other businessmen in Hyderabad and Mumbai by creating fake bank websites and criminal cases were registered against him in those cities earlier.
The accused gave the complainant, who was seeking a loan for setting up a sugar factory, an assumption that they would get the loan required for him from SBIFC and demanded a commission of 7% of the sanctioned loan amount. During 2017, they arranged meetings at five initial hotels in Bengaluru and Chennai, where some of the accused posed as bank officials.
The prosecution alleges that a bogus website was created to mislead the complainant and that emails and OTP alerts were allegedly generated to make it clear that ₹225.49 million had been credited to his alleged account created using the fake website. The complainant believed them and paid ₹7.15 million as 50% of the agreed commission through bank transfers and cash installments in early 2018.
However, when the complainant could not withdraw ₹225 million from the account, the accused convinced him that it was due to a technical glitch. The fraud came to light when the complainant’s repeated attempts to collect funds failed, he discovered that the website was inactive, and later some of the accused went into solitary confinement during 2020. The complaint was filed in 2022, citing delays due to the accused’s assurance of refunding the commission amount and COVIND-19.
Rejecting the defendants’ contention that there was a civil dispute over payment between them and the complaint, the court said “allegations of creating fake websites, impersonating bank officials, fabricating electronic communications cannot be considered civil disputes”.
Published – 20 Feb 2026 21:01 IST