J&K High Court Refuses to Quash FIR in SIM-Swap Fraud Draining Over Rs 8 Lakh from Trekker's Accounts

The Srinagar bench rejected a petition challenging an FIR for SIM-swap fraud, holding that allegations of cognizable offences cannot be tested at the quashing stage under Section 528 BNSS.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar dismissed a petition seeking to quash FIR No. 1/2025, registered at Police Station Nishat, Srinagar, for offences under sections 318(4), 319(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Justice Sanjay Dhar, sitting singly, found that the contents of the FIR plainly disclosed cognizable offences and that the investigating agency could not be restrained from discharging its statutory duty. The petitioner, Yavnika alias Anshu, had argued the FIR rested on a contradictory and concocted story, but the court declined to examine the truth or falsity of the allegations at the quashing stage.

The FIR and the Allegations Against the Petitioner

The impugned FIR originated as a zero FIR lodged with Police Station Cyber Crime District Siliguri, West Bengal, on a complaint filed by the father of the victim, one Ritwik Gupta. The zero FIR was transferred to Police Station Nishat, Srinagar, and led to registration of FIR No. 1/2025. As many as 12 persons were named in the complaint, including the petitioner.

The complainant alleged that the victim travelled to Jammu & Kashmir between 24 August 2024 and 2 September 2024. He checked into a dormitory at a hostel called “WHOSTELS” at Upper Brein Nishat, Srinagar, on 24 August 2024. According to the complaint, the petitioner and a co-accused named Rohit Kumar befriended the victim at the hostel.

On 26 August 2024, when the victim went to the bathroom and left his mobile phone charging in his room, the petitioner and Rohit Kumar were allegedly seen handling the device. When confronted, they told the victim his phone was not charging properly and they were trying to fix it. The complaint alleged that the two accused, along with the hostel manager, one Wasim Raja, used that opportunity to swap the victim's original Jio SIM card bearing contact number 8617808574 with an unknown Jio prepaid SIM bearing contact number 9015296329, which had been issued in the name of one Ajay Suwalka of Himachal Pradesh.

The victim left Srinagar on 27 August 2024 for a week-long trekking trip to the Pir Panjal range, during which he had no mobile network access. When he returned to the hostel on 2 September 2024 and checked his phone, he found that multiple fraudulent transactions had been carried out through net banking. Funds aggregating Rs 8,73,661.50 were allegedly siphoned from his accounts with HDFC Bank, State Bank of India, and using his HDFC debit card and ICICI Bank credit card, between 27 August 2024 and 2 September 2024 at Upper Brein, Srinagar.

The victim also found that the accused had applied for a credit card from Axis Bank using his SIM card and had applied for loans and additional debit and credit cards from multiple banks using his SIM card and identity. Jio's service provider later confirmed to the victim that his registered SIM was no longer active in his handset and had been replaced by another Jio SIM. The complaint alleged that the petitioner and her associate used the victim's original SIM to generate and verify one-time passwords (OTPs) to execute the fraudulent transactions.

Petitioner's Grounds for Quashing

The petitioner challenged the FIR on three main grounds: that the story in the complaint was concocted; that the allegations were internally contradictory and therefore falsified the FIR; and that the contents of the FIR, even taken at face value, did not disclose the commission of the offences for which it had been registered.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Sanjay Dhar read the FIR contents and found that the core allegation — that the petitioner and her associate fiddled with the victim's mobile phone, swapped his SIM card with another, and then misused the original SIM to siphon over Rs 8 lakh through various electronic transactions — was clear on the face of the record.

The court held that these allegations plainly disclosed the commission of cognizable offences under several provisions of the BNS and also under the Information Technology Act. The court did not enumerate each specific provision of the IT Act in its reasoning, but the reference to it as an additional source of offences signalled that the complaint attracted more than the BNS provisions named in the FIR.

On the petitioner's argument that the allegations were contradictory and false, the court applied a settled jurisdictional limit: under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the court “cannot hold a mini trial and determine the veracity of the allegations made in the impugned FIR.” Whether the allegations are correct or false, the court said, is a matter for investigation. The truthfulness of the complaint is not a question the High Court resolves at the quashing stage.

The court then drew the logical consequence: once the FIR discloses cognizable offences, the investigating agency has a statutory duty to investigate, and the court cannot restrain it from doing so. The petitioner's characterisation of the story as contradictory or concocted did not alter the jurisdictional position.

Outcome

Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed CRM(M) No. 469/2026 on 13 July 2026, finding no merit in the petition. The FIR registered at Police Station Nishat, Srinagar, for offences under sections 318(4), 319(2) and 61(2) of the BNS stands, and the investigation into the alleged SIM-swap fraud will proceed.