The Delhi High Court has delivered a strong cautionary ruling in a cheating case involving promises of exorbitant returns, holding that investors who knowingly gamble their money on unrealistic schemes must be prepared to face consequences instead of seeking sympathy from the State when losses occur.
Justice Arun Monga, speaking for the Court, underscored that “if you choose greed, you choose risk; and if you choose risk, you choose consequences.” He remarked that easy money is a “dangerous illusion,” and when investors pump capital into unsustainable ventures promising unbelievable high returns, they not only jeopardize themselves but also distort the market balance for genuine participants.
The Court was hearing a bail application in Yogesh Singh v. State NCT of Delhi (BAIL APPLN. 3183/2020), concerning an FIR where investors were allegedly induced with assurances of 24% annual returns (2% monthly) to part with ₹1.93 crore. When the business collapsed, the investors lodged criminal complaints of cheating.
Justice Monga, however, questioned whether recipients of such investments alone should shoulder criminal liability. Fraudsters, he clarified, must be punished where cheating is proven, but Courts cannot become shelters for reckless risk-takers.
“These are not returns; these are temptations. Investors knew exactly what they were signing up for. When someone promises riches far beyond what the market offers, common sense should scream ‘scam’. But greed silences reason,” the Court observed.
The Court contrasted the irony in investor conduct: “When returns are paid, the recipient is hailed as a financial genius; but the moment business collapses, the same person is branded a criminal.” Investors, the judge remarked, are not innocent victims but speculators—gamblers who cheer when they win and must also pay when they lose.
The Court emphasized that the matter essentially arises out of non-performance of contractual obligations, which is civil in nature. “Is non-servicing of debt ipso facto a crime? Accepting such an interpretation would be fraught with danger,” it said, warning that every case of loan default would otherwise lead to criminal branding of debtors.
While acknowledging that financial misconduct or siphoning of funds can amount to crime, the Court held that when people lend money at exorbitant rates, principles of “buyer beware” and due diligence must apply, rather than retrospective cries of victimhood.
On the procedural aspect, the High Court noted that despite the FIR being registered, the chargesheet had not been filed for over six years. Such an unexplained delay, it held, amounted to a violation of the accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“The delay severely prejudices the right of the accused to defend themselves effectively. Witnesses may be untraceable, their memory faded, and evidence compromised. This alone is a legitimate ground for quashing proceedings,” the Court ruled.
Justice Monga concluded with a wider societal warning:
• “Greed is a silent crime against wisdom. It blinds people to the obvious, drives them into risky ventures, and then makes them demand sympathy when the tide turns.”
• “A responsible society cannot endorse a culture where greed masquerades as innocence. Fraud must be punished, but investors demanding 24% annual returns without security are not saints wronged—they are speculators who rolled the dice and lost.”
For Petitioner: Mr. Jinendra Jain, Ms. Bijay Lakshmi, Mr. M.N. Mishra, Mr. Krishna Sharma, Mr. Manoj Gautam, and Ms. Kashish Gupta.
For State: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP, with IO Ashok Chauhan, PS Rani Bagh.
For Complainant: Mr. Bharat Gupta and Mr. Tushar Rohmetra.
