IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 17142 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

SRI BINOJ P J S/O. SRI.JOSE.P.V AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT PUDUSSERY HOUSE, CHOTTUPARA KILLANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA STATE-680581 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DEENABANDHU RAI N., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI AND:

J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of 1. STATE BY KARNATAKA Karnataka COMMERCIAL STREET POLICE STATION BENGALURU NOW REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU HIGH COURT COMPLEX BANGALORE - 560 001

2. SRI.AMBARAYA.M.KAMANAMI, AGED 48 YEARS POLICE INSPECTOR /

STATION HOUSE OFFICER, COMMERCIAL STREET POLICE STATION, SHIVAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1)

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.NO.2119/2025, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 67(b) OF I.T. ACT, U/S 15 OF POCSO ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1, AT BENGALURU AGAINST THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the charge sheet in Special Case No.2119 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘the IT Act’ for short) and Section 15 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘the POCSO Act’ for short).

2. Heard Sri. Deenabandhu Rai N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The petitioner is the sole accused in the subject crime. In a strange circumstance, the petitioner is caught in the web of proceedings. A crime comes to be registered in Crime No.1 of 2025 for several offences against several accused. The petitioner is one of the accused in the said crime. The mobile phone of the petitioner is seized and sent for forensic examination. While the forensic examination was being conducted, the forensic experts found a plethora of pictures and videos of child pornography. Therefore, a complaint comes to be registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 67B of the IT Act and Section 15 of the POCSO Act.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was only holding those photos and videos in his phone and had not circulated them. Therefore, the act of the petitioner would not amount to the offences punishable under Section 67B of the IT Act and Section 15 of the POCSO Act. The learned counsel further submits that charges have already been framed in the case at hand.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. The issue is, whether the petitioner can be charged of the offence punishable under Section 15 of the POCSO Act and Section 67B of the IT Act.

6. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner becomes the sole accused in Special Case No.2119 of 2025 not directly, but on ingredients of crime being found out of serendipity. A crime comes to be registered in Crime No.1/2025 in a different circumstance against several accused. The petitioner is one of the accused in it. The mobile phone of the petitioner was seized and sent for forensic examination. The forensic experts found that the mobile phone was filled with child pornography containing both pictures and videos. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that merely keeping videos and pictures of child pornography would not be an offence under the aforesaid sections. The said submission is unacceptable and is in violation of the law laid