Calcutta High Court refuses to quash case against an online legal firm accused of cheating woman seeking credit card scam advice.

The Calcutta High Court refused to dismiss a criminal case against the proprietors of an online 'legal services' company accused of defrauding a woman who sought their help after being targeted in a credit card scam, connecting with them via Google for assistance.

A single bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held:

The company, operating under the website "https://www.onlinelegalindia.com," appears to have defrauded numerous individuals in a manner similar to the complainant's experience. The complainant attempted to contact the company again, but they refused communication, even using offensive language toward her. She was allegedly charged Rs. 1,179 under the pretense of filing an FIR in their "cyber cell," yet she neither received a copy of the FIR nor any support in exchange for the fee.

The woman, referred to as Opposite Party No. 2, filed a complaint with Bidhan Nagar Cyber Crime Police Station. She reported receiving a call from an unknown number, where the caller informed her of a supposed Rs. 4,000 gift voucher. The caller, pretending to be a bank employee, guided her through "activation" instructions, leading to a Rs. 12,000 deduction from her credit card.

Realizing she had been defrauded, she searched for solutions online, ultimately finding the “Online Legal India” website, where she submitted her information. Subsequently, another caller associated with the website requested personal and bank information related to her case, claiming the company's cyber cell would handle the matter for a fee of Rs. 1,179. She paid this amount, but received neither an FIR copy nor any assistance.

The petitioner's legal team argued that the company lawfully provides paid legal services, including by submitting complaints to the Bidhan Nagar Commissionerate. They maintained that the Rs. 1,179 was charged as a service fee and insisted the company is not involved in fraudulent activities.

The state counsel, however, countered that both the company and its director are implicated in deceiving individuals via cyber fraud. Multiple witness statements and seized items were cited as evidence of the company's activities.

After examining the arguments, the court noted that the company had discouraged the complainant from contacting state police and had defrauded multiple people in similar ways.

Consequently, the court ruled, "At this preliminary stage of investigation, it would not be appropriate to quash the proceedings without valid grounds. The Court cannot assess the credibility or accuracy of the allegations in the FIR or complaint." The plea for revision was thus denied.