Karnataka High Court orders FIR in ISRO fraud

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday directed the Bengaluru police to register a case against a man who claimed that he was swindled of over Rs 1 crore by a woman and her alleged accomplices under the pretext of securing him a job at the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), citing the transaction's "unusual nature".

A vacation bench led by Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued this direction while hearing a bail petition filed by the accused, Vinutha M E.

The court directed that a complaint be registered against the complainant himself, noting the "unusual nature" of the transaction.

“The allegation by the complainant is that he paid Rs 1.03 crore to the petitioner (accused woman) and others for obtaining employment in a reputed organisation like ISRO. Therefore, the first respondent (Annapurneshwari Nagar Police) is directed to register a complaint against the complainant,” the court stated.

Additionally, the court has asked for a copy of this order to be forwarded to the Chairman of ISRO, directing the Registrar Judicial to ensure proof of such communication is submitted by the next hearing scheduled on June 4.

Vinutha M E, the petitioner, has also been instructed to furnish details regarding criminal cases reportedly registered against her in the Kollegal and Chikkamagaluru Town police stations.

The complainant, Sanjay N, alleged that in August 2024, Vinutha visited his residence in Nagarabhavi and persuaded him that she could secure him a graphic designer’s position at ISRO. She allegedly collected Rs 37 lakh initially, followed by a fitness certificate from Victoria Hospital, but no job offer followed.

Later, she demanded an additional Rs 23 lakh, which he paid in cash.

Sanjay further claimed that the accused introduced him to individuals identified as Supratho Patho, Reddappa, Rajendra A K, and Anil Kumar at ISRO, who also demanded money. Trusting that a job offer was imminent, he eventually paid a total of Rs 1.03 crore. When no employment materialised and the money was not returned, he filed a complaint.

While seeking bail, Vinutha’s counsel argued that she is a homemaker and that other co-accused in the case have already been granted bail. However, the court observed that Vinutha has a history of criminal involvement and described her as a “habitual offender.” Her counsel countered that it was her husband, not she, who was involved in previous cases and urged the court to consider conditional bail.

The matter will be taken up again on June 4.