1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2777/2020

BETWEEN:

DIVYA ANANTH

D/O. M.E. ANANTHANARAYAN

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

NO. 3464, 20^TH ‘C’ MAIN ROAD,

VIJAYANAGAR 2^ND STAGE,

ILAWALA HOBLI,

MYSURU – 570 002.

… PETITIONER

[BY SRI. SAGAR G. NAHAR, ADVOCATE (VC)]

AND:

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR

STATION HOUSE OFFICER

CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION

1^ST FLOOR, ASHOKAPURAM POLICE STATION

KUVEMPUNAGARA, MYSURU.

2.

DR. KAJAL NARESH KUMAR

AGED MAJOR

D/O. NARESH KUMAR

NO.191, 9^TH CROSS, GOKULAM

2

3^RD STAGE,

MYSURU - 02.

… RESPONDENTS

[BY SRI. K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1

SRI. B.K. MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VC)]

---

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482

OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN

CR.NO.199/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 CCB

POLICE, PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE JMFC II COURT,

MYSURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND G.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying

this Court to quash the complaint in Cr.No.199/2019 on the file

of respondent No.1 CCB Police, pending before learned JMFC II

Court, Mysore.

2.

The factual matrix of the case is that, second

respondent has lodged a complaint before the police making

allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner has indulged

in hacking the phone belonging to the complainant and also got

erased the material information which was stored in the mobile

3

and further alleged that when she was suffering from high fever

and experiencing giddiness, petitioner came to her house

numerous times on the same day and on the next day to force

the complainant to make signatures on the agreements. Since

the inception of the Company, the petitioner has cheated her by

drafting agreements which are only in favour of petitioner’s well

being. Further a specific allegation is made in the complaint that

the complainant realized that her phone was not functioning in a

rightful manner since two days and found some changes and

suddenly when she put the credential into the Gmail, came to

know that the petitioner has mirror of her phone and has

complete access to the personal data, bank data, photos, emails

and other drafts of her phone started getting erased. The

complainant also got a notification that “phone erasing” and

within seconds, her phone was erased and the complainant lost

all data in her mobile.

3.

Based on this complaint, the police registered a FIR

in Crime No.199/2019 for the offence punishable under sections

66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000

4

(hereinafter referred to as “IT Act”) and sections 420 and 419 of

the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court

challenging the very registration of the FIR.

4(i)

The first and foremost argument of the petitioner’s

counsel is that invocation of offence under special provision

under sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act

and other offences under IPC are invoked only to harass the

petitioner. The second argument of the learned counsel is that,

when the special enactment is invoked, there cannot be any

criminal proceedings against the petitioner under sections 419

and 420 of IPC. Learned counsel also submits that offences

under Information Technology Act are bailable in nature and

non-cognizable offences are invoked only to harass the

petitioner.

4(ii) In support of his submission, learned counsel has

relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

SHARAT BABU DIGUMARTI vs. GOVERNMENT (NCT OF DELHI)

reported in (2017) 2 SCC 18 and learned counsel brought to the

notice of this Court paragraph No.32 of the said judgment,