IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.5043 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN: DILIP JOSE S/O PUTHIYIDATHU JOSEPH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS MD AND CEO, MANIPAL HEALTH ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.

HAVING OFFICE AT: THE ANNEXE #98/2, RUSTOM BAGH ROAD HAL AIRPORT ROAD BENGALURU – 560 017.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRABHULING NAVADIG, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ABHISHEK M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER KOTHANUR POLICE STATION BENGALURU REP. BY THE HIGH COURT Digitally GOVERNMENT PLEADER signed by HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CHANDANA BANGALORE – 560 001.

B M Location:

High Court 2. SIDDARTH CHHOTTRAY of S/O S K CHHOTTARAY Karnataka AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/A FLAT NO.61002

10^TH FLOOR, TOWER -6 NICKOO HOMES -1, BHARATHIYA CITY BENGLAURU – 560 064.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. THEJESH.P, HCGP FOR R-1;

SRI. ABHILASH RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED

15/02/2025 LODGED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT QUA THE PETITIONER AND THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.0029/2025 DATED 15/02/2025 REGISTERED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT / KOTHANUR POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 318 AND 3(5) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 AND SECTION 72 OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE XXIX ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU, QUA THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE-A).

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’

GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner – accused No.4 seeks quashing of the impugned complaint and FIR dated 15.02.2025 registered in Crime No.29/2025 for offences punishable under Sections 318 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, ‘ the IT Act’) on the file of the XXIX ACJM, Bengaluru City and for other reliefs.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.2 as well as learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned complaint and FIR in order to point out that even a plain /

bare reading of the same will indicate that it does not disclose the commission of the aforesaid offences by the petitioner – accused No.4 and as such, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Dutt and others Vs. State of Haryana and another – (2025) SCC Online SC 32, the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner – accused No.4 deserve to be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

6. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the

2^nd respondent – complainant filed the impugned complaint arraigning the petitioner as accused No.4 along with the complainant’s wife, Akanksha Mohanty as accused No.2 and the Chief HR Officer of Manipal Group as accused No.1 and Deputy Manager, MRD, Manipal Health Enterprises as accused No.3 for alleged offences punishable under Section 3(5) and 318 of the BNS, 2023 and Section 72 of the IT Act. It is contended by the complainant that his medical records was shared by accused No.3 with accused No.1 along with his wife, accused No.2, who produced the said records in matrimonial disputes in M.C.No.873/2025 pending before the Family Court between the respondent No.2 – complainant and his wife – accused No.2. In this context, it is relevant to state that the impugned complaint neither imputes petitioner’s direct involvement in the alleged offences nor are there s