IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4921 OF 2020 BETWEEN:

MR. ASHIK RAVEENDRAN AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/O. RAVEENDRAN VADAKETHIL GANGADHARAN, PRESENTLY R/AT 8, CONDIFFE PALACE, NEW WINDSOR, AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND 0600, INDIAN ADDRESS AT NARANGANAM WEST P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA, KOZHENCHERY, KERALA 689642 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SOLADEVANAHALLI P S, Digitally signed by PRASHANTH REP BY SPP, N V HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, Location: H igh Court of BENGALURU - 560 001 Karnataka

2. MS. NIVEDITA RANJIT AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, D/O. RANJIT KRISHNAN, S.V PG, NO. 37, NEAR ACHARYA GIRLS COTTAGES, ACHIT NAGARA, SOLADEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU CITY - 560 090 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY. R., HCGP FOR R1 R2 - SD.)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CR.NO.82/2016 REGISTERED BY 1^ST RESPONDENT POLICE I.E., ANNEXURE-A, CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.8396/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF C.J.M., BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU I.E., ANNEXURE-C AND THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2017 PASSED BY THE C.J.M., BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU I.E. ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 354A, 419, 504, 506, 509 OF IPC AND SECTION 66(E), 67(A) OF I.T. ACT AND QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.8396/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF C.J.M., BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner being the accused in C.C.No.8396/2016 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural, is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 419, 504, 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and under Sections 66(E), 67(A) of Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short 'IT Act').

2. Heard Sri. Siddharth Suman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rangaswamy R, learned HCGP for respondent. Perused the materials on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the sole accused. He went to New Zealand on student visa during July 2015 and returned to India during 2019-2020 when he received intimation regarding issuance of warrant against him in the present case.

4. Learned counsel submitted that, according to respondent No.2 - informant, the incident had occurred from 28.10.2015 to 22.03.2016, when the petitioner was admittedly in New Zealand. The proviso to Section 188 of Cr.P.C bars any enquiry or trial in India of an offence committed outside India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. Admittedly, when the petitioner was in New Zealand, committing the offences as alleged being Indian citizen, the proviso to Section 188 of Cr.P.C. is squarely applicable. Even though the charge sheet is already filed by the Investigating Officer, there is no reference to such sanction obtained from the Central Government. The charge sheet discloses that the petitioner was in New Zealand and he was not available during investigation and only after completion of investigation and filing of the charge sheet, the look out notice was issued. Under such circumstances, the trial Court could not have taken cognizance and summoned the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the present case, the first information produced as per Annexure-B is dated 22.03.2016 and the FIR came to be registered on the very same date. The informant/respondent No.2 has filed similar complaint dated 21.03.2016 before the Aranmula Police Station, Kerala alleging commission of offence under Section 66(B) of IT Act, 2000 and under Section 509 of IPC. Learned counsel referring to this document contends that the informant has never referred to the present complaint filed before Soladevanahalli Police Stat