Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 13975
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J
ROHAN CARIAPPA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 985 OF 2025 | 482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. PRATEEK G., SRI. KARTHIK V.
For the Respondents: SMT. SOWMYA R.
Vague and general allegations in a complaint do not satisfy the legal requirements for offences under the Information Technology Act, warranting quashing of proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 67 and 67(a) - Quashing of FIR - Petitioners alleged to have posted content on social media that hurt sentiments of hearing and speech impaired individuals - Allegations in the complaint were vague and did not attract the ingredients for the offences under the Act - Court found no specific incidents or allegations against petitioners - Petition allowed and proceedings quashed. (Paras 4, 6, 7)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Powers of the High Court - The High Court can quash proceedings if the allegations do not disclose a prima facie case against the accused. (Para 6)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek to quash fir based on vague allegations. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. respondent no.2 unrepresented in the court. (Para 3) |
| 3. allegations in the complaint lack specificity. (Para 5) |
| 4. court emphasizes quashing proceedings due to insufficient allegations. (Para 6) |
| 5. court allows petition and quashes proceedings. (Para 7) |
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:
“i. Quash the Complaint dated 22.07.2024 pending on the file of the 45th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, at Bengaluru.
ii. Quash the FIR in Crime No.32/2024 dated 22.07.2024 registered by the Respondent – Cyber Crime Police, Bengaluru for the offences under Section 67 and 67(a) of the Information and Technology Act pending on the file of the 45th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru.
iii. Quash the entire charge-sheet in C.C.No.3650/2025 for offences under Sections 67 and 67(a) of the I.T. Act, 1860 pending on the file of the XXXV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate Court, at Bengaluru.
iv. Quash the order of taking cognizance and issuance of summons dated 31.01.2025 in C.C.NO.3650/2025 by the XXXXV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate Court, at Bengaluru.
v. Consequently, quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.3650/2025 pending on the file of 45th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, at Bengaluru; and vi. Pass such other Order which is deemed fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.
3. Though respondent No.2 was served with notice of this petition, he has not chosen to contest the petition and has remained unrepresented.
4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2 filed the instant complaint against the petitioner on 22.07.2024, which is registered as FIR in Crime No.32/2024 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 67 and 67(a) of the Information Technology Act. In pursuance of the same, charge sheet was filed, which is currently pending in C.C.No.3650/2025.
According to respondent No.2, the petitioners are alleged to have posted the content on their Instagram channel showing the persons who are impaired with hearing and speech in a comical way, thereby hurting the sentiments of such people.
5. The complaint which led to registration of FIR in Crime No.32/2024 by respondent No.1-Police is as under:
6. A perusal of the entire material on record will indicate that the allegations made in the complaint are reiterated in the Statement of Witnesses and charge sheet, all of which do not attract the ingredients for the offences punishable under Sections 67 and 67(a) of the Information Technology Act. It is also pertinent to note that except making bald, vague, general and omnibus allegations, specific incidents and allegations as against petitioners-accused are conspicuously absent in the impugned complaint, FIR and charge sheet, which is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the impugned proceedings against the petitioner deserves to be quashed.
7. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.3650/2025 (arising out of Crime No.32/2024 registered by respondent No.2 – Police) pending on the file of the 45th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, are hereby quashed.
