IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9985 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)

BETWEEN:

MOHAMMED SARWAR S/O MOHABOOB PASHA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O NO. 02, 6^TH CROSS, KAVALABYRASANDRA, R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 032.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CID CYBER CRIME P.S., REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.

2. VIVEK MARWAHA Digitally signed by BANK EMPLOYER MADHURI S AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS Location: R/O NO-I 401, ROAHN, High Court JHAROKA APARTMENT, of Karnataka PHASE-1, YAMALUR, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA – 560 037.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS)

PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.18547/2025 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.1/2023 OF CYBER CRIME POL CID AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000 (U/S 66(b), 66(c))

AND SECTION 120B, 109, 411, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING IN THE COURT OF I ACJM BANGALORE.

THIS PETITION IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 07.11.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

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

CAV ORDER

In this petition, petitioner-accused No.5 seeks quashing of the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.18547/2025 for offences punishable under Sections 66(c) and (d) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short ‘the said Act of 2000’) and Sections 120B, 109, 411, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC and for other reliefs.

2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to complaint dated 06.03.2023 lodged by the 2^nd respondent – de facto complainant, the 1^st respondent – police authorities registered an FIR in Crime No.1/2023 dated 06.03.2023 against Sheik Mahamood – accused No.1 and Moiuddin Papamiyan Patel – accused No.2 for offences punishable under Sections 66(c) and (d) of the said Act of 2000 and Sections 419 and 420 IPC, in pursuance of which, the police authorities conducted investigation and filed a charge sheet in the impugned proceedings against accused Nos. 1 to 4 and accused Nos.6 and 7 as well as petitioner – accused No.5, who is before this Court by way of the present petition seeking quashing of the impugned proceedings.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl.SPP for the respondents and perused the material on record.

4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint did not contain the name of the petitioner who was not arrayed as an accused person and the investigation officer failed to unearth any concrete corroborative or incriminating evidence directly linking the petitioner to the alleged offences. It was also submitted that in addition to the fact that there was a delay in lodgment of the complaint and vital pieces of evidence viz., alleged POS machine, international cards had not been seized, no specific overt act or role has been attributed to the petitioner in the entire charge sheet nor have any bank statements, call detail records or transactions proofs have been produced to establish the involvement of the petitioner. It was further submitted that the material seized from the petitioner viz., primary mobile phones, sim cards etc., have not been demonstrably linked to the alleged criminal activity through any forensic analysis or transactional evidence and the purported recovery of Rs.3 lakhs from the account of the petitioner’s wife was disputed by the petitioner who asserts that it was deposited under instructions from the investigating officer for his release and not as proceeds of crime. He would further submits that the charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner based on voluntary statement of co-accused No.4 which is impermissible in law. It is