Back
2026 Supreme(Kar) 239
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Miss. Dayeena Banu, D/o. Late B.S. Mehboob Shariff – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Karnataka By Vidhana Soudha Police Station, Bengaluru (Represented By Learned State Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Karnataka Bengaluru) – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.2169 of 2025
Decided On : 05-08-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashment of FIR
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.149, S.302, S.415, S.420
Headnote
(B) Quashment of FIR - Scope of judicial interference - FIR is not an encyclopedia of offences and does not need to disclose all details relating to the reported offence - At the stage of investigation, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations but only determine if the threshold for a cognizable offence is met. (Paras 11, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3)
(C) Institutional Integrity - Allegations involving the bribery of judicial officers affect the credibility of the institution - Such matters necessitate investigation to protect the integrity of the judiciary. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
A litigant alleged that several individuals, including an advocate, induced her to pay money on the pretext that it would be used to bribe a judge to secure the release of her son. Following a letter sent to the court, the court directed the registration of a crime for cheating. The accused advocate sought to quash the FIR, contending that the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating were not made out.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the act of inducing a person to deliver money based on the false promise of influencing a judge constitutes prima facie cheating. Since the matter is at the investigation stage, the court cannot scrutinize the evidence in the manner of a trial court.
Issues: Whether the FIR registered under Section 318(4) of the BNS should be quashed on the grounds that the ingredients of cheating are absent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the interpretation of cheating must be dynamic and adapt to emerging crimes. When an FIR discloses a prima facie cognizable offence, especially one that threatens the institutional integrity of the judiciary, the investigation must be permitted to proceed. The correctness of the allegations is not to be tested at the threshold of quashing the FIR but during the investigation and subsequent trial.
Result: Petition rejected.
For the Petitioner:Sri Hashmath Pasha, Sr. Advocate for Sri Mohammed Mubarak, Advocate
For the Respondents:Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, SPP-I, Sri Madhukar Deshpande, Advocate, Sri Chetan V., Advocate.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. Petitioner contends no ingredients of cheating are made out; State opposes quashing, urging investigation to protect institutional integrity. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 2. Petition to quash FIR registered under Section 318(4) BNS alleging cheating by inducing payment of money for securing bail through bribe to a judge. (Para 8) |
| 3. Petition rejected; FIR not quashed; investigation continues; interim and protective orders dissolved. (Para 13) |
ORDER :
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
The petitioner, accused No.1 is before the Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.117 of 2024, for offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the BNS.
2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
2.1. A complaint comes to be registered by the High Court of Karnataka through its Registrar General before the Vidhana Soudha Police Station alleging that one V.Vishnu Devan was arrested in Crime No.206 of 2021 for offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 149 of the IPC on 14-11-2021. He was remanded to judicial custody. His mother was trying to get him released and, in that connection, meets a lady by name Miss Marina Fernandes near Mayo Hall Court, who is said to have asked Rs.10/- lakhs to get her son released. It is the case of the mother/Smt. Theresa that in spite of payment of the said amount to Miss Marina Fernandes, her son was not released. She asked for return Rs.10/- lakhs, in exchange of which Miss Marina Fernandes is said to have issued three cheques of Rs.3/- lakhs each, which were not encashed.
2.2. But, the efforts of the mother to get her son released did not stop. She again meets Miss Merina Fernandes. This time she is introduced to one lady Aarathi, who assures that she is close to the Judge and she will do the work of getting her son released and through Miss. Marina Fernandes, the mother is said to have paid Rs.72,000/- initially to Aarathi. Again, bail was not granted. Smt. Theresa/mother of V.Vishnu Devan is said to have verified before this Court whether a bail application is filed even. The bail application was filed and pending, but the Advocate had not appeared before the Court on the day the bail application was listed. It is then, the mother is said to have contacted the lady Aarathi, who is said to have hurled abuses against the mother and shouted at her alleging who asked her to contact the Advocate and then asked her give Rs.1/- lakh so that they would give it to the Judge and get the accused released. It is then, the petitioner - Miss. Dayeena Baanu, an advocate enters the fray and conveys to Smt. Theresa that a huge amount is to be paid to the Judge of the High Court to secure an order of release of her son. Smt. Theresa went and lodged a complaint before the Bar Council alleging that Aarathi and Miss Marina Fernandes have cheated her by taking the money to give it to the Judge of the High Court. Then the mother of the Accused, Smt. Theresa is said to have directly approached the High Court with a letter on 18-12-2024 stating that the Advocate is asking money to give it to the Judge.
2.3. The Hon’ble Judge is said to have secured the records of the criminal petition and directed registration of a crime through the Registrar General of the High Court. It is then that a complaint is registered, which becomes a crime in Crime No.117 of 2024 for offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the BNS against several accused. The petitioner/Miss.Dayeena Banu, an Advocate who had not appeared on the date when the bail application was listed, is drawn as accused No.1. The petitioner filed an application seeking her release on bail, which comes to be rejected. The rejection of which has driven the present petitioner to this Court seeking quashment of the FIR itself on the ground that the offence of cheating is not even made out in the case at hand.
3. Heard Sri Hasmath Pasha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned State Public Prosecutor-1 appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. Madhu
