Sri Prakash M v. The State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11484 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

¶1SRI. PRAKASH M S/O. MAHESH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.1261/1, 11TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, 1ST BLOCK, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA - 560 097.

¶2SRI. VARSHARANI, W/O. PRASHANT, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.1065, 3RD FLOOR, GIDADAKONEHALLI, NAGARABHAVI, BE LAYOUT, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA - 560 091. (BOTH ARE DIRECTORS OF OMKARPRO BUILDING PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BHADRAVADI SIDDESWARA, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HALASUR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY

THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶2MRS. NIVEDITA E.P., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL E-GOVERNANCE SERVICES LIMITED, W/O S.K. RAJU, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, THE ESTATE, 121, DICKENSON ROAD, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA - 560 042. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAGHARISH G.S, HCGP FOR R1)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.56216/2025 PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED 10TH A.C.M.M MAYO HALL BENGALURU CITY FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 73 OF I.T ACT 2000 AND SEC.465, 468 OF THE IPC 1860 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.264/2023 REGISTERED BY HALASUR P.S.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.

¶2This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.56216/2025 pending before the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Section 73 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). The proceedings arise out of Crime No.264/2023 registered before the Halasuru Police Station.

¶3Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the Directors of the M/s Omkarpro Building Projects Private Limited. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the victims of cyber fraud committed by Prakash L M and Manoj, Ashish Rai and Prathamesh. It is urged that aforementioned persons approached the petitioners and assured that they would assist the petitioners in getting bank guarantee from ICICI Bank to purchase raw materials. It is also submitted that the aforementioned persons induced the petitioners to open

the bank account and to hand over the documents relating to KYC details and collected Rs.15,10,500/- towards processing fee charges. It is urged that the said persons uploaded the document in the e-portal by using petitioners login credentials.

¶4It is submitted that later, the Company realised that the documents uploaded by those two persons were fake documents and in this regard, a complaint is filed against M/s Omkarpro Building Projects Private Limited. And charge sheet is filed against the petitioners.

¶5It is also submitted that petitioner No.1 has filed a complaint dated 21.10.2023 and charge sheet is filed in the said complaint against 5 persons.

¶6Thus, it is urged that the present charge sheet against the petitioners is not tenable.

¶7Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Company has not uploaded any documents. The petitioners have also not uploaded any documents. The documents were uploaded by the other persons against whom the Company has lodged a complaint. Thus, the prosecution against the petitioners is impermissible.

¶8Learned HCGP would submit that the Police, after investigation, have filed the charge sheet. The documents uploaded on behalf of the Company are found to be fake. Thus, the matter requires trial, as the petitioners have colluded with other accused named in another charge sheet.

¶9The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

¶10It is not the case of the petitioners that the documents produced by the petitioners are genuine documents. It appears that the documents uploaded on

behalf of the Company in which the petitioners are working are not genuine documents. Prima facie it appears the bank guarantee allegedly generated is not genuine.

¶11The Court is of the view that the grounds urged in the petition are frivolous and vexatious and that there is absolutely no merit in invoking the jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶12Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the matter requires trial. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6