ABHAY SHEE vs STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47735
WP No. 24177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010533562026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R
ST
DATED THIS THE 1 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 24177 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
ABHAY SHEE
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.558,
SAIDULAJAB,
POST OFFICE MEHRAULI,
SOUTH DELHI – 110 030.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI UDAY SHANKAR M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA.
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. SRI SUBBARAO
POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
Digitally
signed by
CHETAN B C
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47735
WP No. 24177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010533562026
CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU CITY,
KARNATAKA.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R-1)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., / SECTION 528 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO QUASH FIR
NO.66/2025 (CR. NO.66/2025) REGISTERED BY THE CYBER
CRIME POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE
UNDER SECTION 66-F OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
ACT, 2000, AND QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.
TH
41074/2026 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE 45
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU,
INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, IN EXERCISE
OF THE INHERENT JURISDICTION OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND C.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before the Court calling in question the
th
in C.C.No.41074/2026, pending before the 45 Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offences
punishable under Section 351(4) of the BNS and Section 66D of
the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to
as ‘the Act’ for short).
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47735
WP No. 24177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010533562026
2. Heard Sri Uday Shankar M., learned counsel for the
petitioner and Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned counsel for the
respondents.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:
3.1. The petitioner is accused No.1 and respondent No.2,
the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the Cyber Crime Police
Station, is the complainant. The genesis of the prosecution lies
in an incident that is alleged to have occurred on 30.11.2025.
On the said date, certain electronic mails, ominous in their
tenor and alarming in their contents, are said to have landed in
the electronic mailbox of the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru
City. The mails carried threats of bomb blasts at the
Kempegowda International Airport and several shopping malls
situated within the city of Bengaluru. The threats, by their very
nature, were sufficient to send alarm bells ringing across the
law enforcement machinery, as they concerned not merely the
security of public establishments but the safety of innumerable
citizens frequenting such places.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47735
WP No. 24177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010533562026
3.2. The information was immediately transmitted to the
authorities concerned, setting the investigative machinery into
motion. During the course of investigation, it is alleged to have
emerged that the threatening electronic mails had emanated
from an email account attributable to the petitioner. This
discovery became the fulcrum of registration of Crime No.66 of
2025, initially invoking Section 66F of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 ('the Act' for short), which deals with the
grave offence of cyber terrorism. The investigation, however,
appears to have taken a different course. Though the crime was
initially registered for the offence of cyber terrorism, the
Investigating Officer, upon completion of investigation, chose
not to carry forward the said offence against the petitioner. The
allegation concerning the transmission of threatening electronic
mails nevertheless survived, culminating in the filing of a
charge sheet for offences punishable under Section 351(4) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ('the BNS' for short) and
Section 66D of the Act. It is the filing of the said charge sheet
and the consequential continuation of criminal proceedings that
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47735
WP No. 24177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010533562026
have driven the petitioner to the portals of this Court, seeking
obliteration of the proceedings instituted against him.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
project a solitary, yet according to him, formidable
circumstance in support of the prayer for quashment. His
submission is that the very foundation upon which the
prosecution rests is rendered doubtful by the fact that the
internet connection available to the petitioner was not
functional on the date of the alleged incident. Drawing the
attention of this Court to the documents appended to the
petition, learned counsel would endeavour to demonstrate that
the internet connectivity to the computer of the petitioner had
become defunct on 30.11.2025, the very date on which the
threatening electronic mails are alleged to have been
transmitted.
5. He would contend that when the means of electronic
communication itself stood disabled, the allegation that the
petitioner had transmitted threatening electronic mails to the
Office of the Commissioner of Police becomes inherently
improbable. It is his submission that the petitioner could not
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47735
WP No. 24177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010533562026
have authored and transmitted the alleged communications
invoking the name of the proscribed terrorist organisation,
Jaish-e-Mohammed, and threatening to unleash bomb blasts at
several prominent locations in the city of Bengaluru, when the
internet facility available to him was allegedly inoperative. On
this premise, learned counsel would urge that permitting the
prosecution to continue would amount to compelling the
petitioner to undergo the rigours of a criminal trial
notwithstanding the material which, according to him, strikes at
the very root of the prosecution case. He would, therefore, seek
quashment of the proceedings.
Per contra
6. , learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents would vehemently refute the
submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. She would
contend that the investigating agency, after undertaking
investigation into the threatening electronic communications,
has collected material which, in its assessment, warrants
prosecution of the petitioner for offences punishable under
Section 351(4) of the BNS and Section 66D of the Act. The
mere circumstance that Section 66F of the Act, which deals
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47735
WP No. 24177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010533562026
with cyber terrorism, has not been invoked in the charge sheet,
according to her, would neither efface the allegations nor
render the remaining offences incapable of trial.
6.1. She would further submit that the deletion of the
offence under Section 66F of the Act at the stage of filing of the
charge sheet does not necessarily foreclose its invocation at a
subsequent stage, should legally admissible material emerge
and the circumstances so warrant, subject, of course, to the
procedure known to law. The contention regarding the alleged
non-functioning of the internet connection, she would submit, is
essentially a matter of defence, the veracity and evidentiary
worth of which cannot be conclusively adjudicated in
proceedings seeking quashment of the prosecution.
6.2. The learned High Court Government Pleader would
emphasise that the allegations concern threats of bomb blasts
at an international airport and public establishments frequented
by thousands of citizens, and that such allegations cannot be
trivialised merely on the strength of a disputed factual assertion
regarding internet connectivity. Whether the threatening
electronic mails were indeed generated or transmitted by the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47735
WP No. 24177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010533562026
petitioner, whether the electronic trail establishes his
involvement, and whether the defence now projected is
sufficient to dislodge the prosecution case are, according to
her, matters which must necessarily be tested in a full-fledged
trial. She would, therefore, submit that the petitioner must face
the trial and establish his innocence in accordance with law,
and would seek dismissal of the petition.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts, dates and the links in the
chain of events are borne out by the records and would
scarcely require any elaborate reiteration. What, however,
assumes significance is the genesis of the alleged act and the
circumstances that culminated in registration of the crime. The
petitioner is alleged to have been embroiled in certain disputes
with his friends on online platforms, resulting in exchange of
electronic communications during the month of October 2025.
What seemingly commenced as an interpersonal discord in the
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47735
WP No. 24177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010533562026
virtual world is alleged to have assumed an altogether sinister
dimension in the succeeding month.
9. On 30.11.2025, an electronic mail is said to have been
transmitted to the Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Bengaluru City, proclaiming that several prominent and densely
frequented locations in the city would be subjected to bomb
blasts. The communication purported to emanate from the
Jaish-e-Mohammed
proscribed terrorist organisation, . It
identified the Kempegowda International Airport and several
shopping malls as the intended targets, specified the time at
which the explosions would allegedly commence, and went a
step further by furnishing a mobile number with an invitation to
make payment to avert the threatened catastrophe. A
communication of this nature, bearing the name of a
terrorist organisation, identifying public places as
targets and holding out the spectre of imminent
destruction, could hardly have been treated as an
innocuous electronic message. It was a threat
calculated, on its face, to instill fear, unsettle public
tranquility and compel the law enforcement machinery
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47735
WP No. 24177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010533562026
to respond with utmost urgency . It is this communication
that became the fulcrum of the complaint registered on
30.11.2025. The complaint reads as follows:
9.1. The complaint reads as follows:
“ : . 30.11.2025
ರವ ೆ ಾಂಕ
,
ೕಇೆಕ
, .
ೈಬೆಂ ೕಾೆ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ
,
ಇಂದ
ಸುಬು$%ಾ&
ೕ ಸ' ಇ ೆಕ
,
ೈಬೆಂ ೕಾೆ
.
ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ
,
(ಾನ)%ೇ
: - .
*ಷಯ -ೕ./ ಕು(ಾ ಎಂಬುವವರು ಾಂ' ೆದೆ ಇ 1ೕ2 (ಾ3ರುವ ಬ ೆ4
*
,
ಈ 1ೕಲ7ಂಡ 1ೕಲ7ಂಡ 1ೕಲ7ಂಡ 1ೕಲ7ಂಡ ಷಯೆ7 ಷಯೆ7 ಷಯ ಷಯೆ7 ೆ7 ಸಂಬಂ9:ದಂ;ೆ ಸಂಬಂ9:ದಂ;ೆ ಸಂಬಂ9:ದಂ;ೆ ಸಂಬಂ9:ದಂ;ೆ <ಾ%ೋ <ಾ%ೋ <ಾ%ೋ <ಾ%ೋ ಅಪ@ತ ಅಪ@ತ ಅಪ ಅಪ@ತ @ತ ವ)BCಗಳD ವ)BCಗಳD ವ)BCಗಳD ವ)BCಗಳD
:30.11.2025 11.53 <mohit
ಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ೆEೆ4 ೆEೆ4 ೆEೆ4 ೆEೆ4 ೆ7ೆ7 ೆ7 ೆ7 -ೕ./ -ೕ./ -ೕ./ -ೕ./ ಕು(ಾ ಕು(ಾ ಕು(ಾ ಕು(ಾ
[email protected] > - This is a
ಈ ಇ 1ೕ2 1ೕ2 ಐ3 Hಂದ ಐ3 Hಂದ
1ೕ2 1ೕ2 ಐ3 ಐ3 Hಂದ Hಂದ
warning from the Jaish-e-Mohammed White collar terror
team, we targeted Kempegowda International Airport
Bengaluru, Orion mall, Lulu Mall, Forum South mall,
Mantri Square Mall, Lulu Mall for bomb blast at 7pm
onwards. Thanks to our allah and our master mohit to
serve better to our nation.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47735
WP No. 24177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010533562026
+91 9368318077 call us if you want to pay and not let
this happen. - COMPOL
ಎಂಬ ಎಂಬ ಎಂಬ ಎಂಬ ಾಂ' ಾಂ' ಾಂ' ಾಂ' ೆದೆ ೆದೆ ೆದೆ ೆದೆ ಇ 1ೕ2 1ೕ2 1ೕ2 1ೕ2 ಸಂIೇಶವನುK ಸಂIೇಶವನುK ಸಂIೇಶವನುK ಸಂIೇಶವನುK
Bengaluru city <[email protected]> .
ರವೆ ರವೆ ರವ ರವೆ ೆ ಕಳD.:ರು;ಾC%ೆ ಕಳD.:ರು;ಾC%ೆ ಕಳD.:ರು;ಾC%ೆ ಕಳD.:ರು;ಾC%ೆ
-
ಈ ೕL ೕL ಇ 1ೕ2 1ೕ2 (ಾ3ರುವರ (ಾ3ರುವರ ರುದM ರುದM ಸೂಕC ಸೂಕC ಾನೂನು ಾನೂನು ಕNಮ ಕNಮ ಜರುQಸ ೇೆಂದು ಜರುQಸ ೇೆಂದು Rೕ3ರುವ Rೕ3ರುವ
ೕL ೕL 1ೕ2 1ೕ2 (ಾ3ರುವರ (ಾ3ರುವರ ರುದM ರುದM ಸೂಕC ಸೂಕC ಾನೂನು ಾನೂನು ಕNಮ ಕNಮ ಜರುQಸ ೇೆಂದು ಜರುQಸ ೇೆಂದು Rೕ3ರುವ Rೕ3ರುವ
.
ದೂರು ದೂರು ದೂರು ದೂರು ಇ;ಾ) ಇ;ಾ) ಇ;ಾ) ಇ;ಾ)
,
ವಂದ ೆಗSೆ ಂೆ
,
ತಮT *UಾV:
/-”
ಸ.
9.2. The complaint set the criminal law in motion and
resulted in registration of Crime No.66 of 2025, initially for the
offence punishable under Section 66F of the Information
Technology Act, 2000, which deals with cyber terrorism. The
investigating agency thereafter embarked upon investigation
and file a charge sheet . The summary of the charge sheet as
obtaining in column No.17 reads as follows:
“17.
ೇ:ನ ೇ:ನ ೇ:ನ ೇ:ನ ಸಂWಪC ಸಂWಪC ಸಂWಪC ಸಂWಪC ಾ%ಾಂಶ ಾ%ಾಂಶ ಾ%ಾಂಶ ಾ%ಾಂಶ
-1 30-11-2025 11-52
ಎ ಆ%ೋY ಆ%ೋYಯು ಆ%ೋY ಆ%ೋY ಯು ಯು ಯು ಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ೆಳೆ4 ೆಳೆ4 ೆಳೆ4 ೆಳೆ4 ಗಂZೆೆ ಗಂZೆೆ ಗಂZೆ ಗಂZೆೆ ೆ ಈ 1ೕ2 1ೕ2 1ೕ2 1ೕ2
<[email protected]> C OMPOL
ಐ3Hಂದ ಐ3Hಂದ ಐ3Hಂದ ಐ3Hಂದ
Bengaluru city<[email protected]> This
ಈ 1ೕ2 1ೕ2 1ೕ2 1ೕ2 ಐ3ೆ ಐ3ೆ ಐ3 ಐ3ೆ ೆ
is a warning from the Jaish-e-Mohammed White collar
terror team, we targeted Kempegowda International
Airport Bengaluru, Orion mall, Lulu Mall, Forum South
mall, Mantri Square Mall, Lulu Mall for bomb blast at 7pm
onwards. Thanks to our allah and our master mohit to
serve better to our nation. +91 9368318077 call us if you
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47735
WP No. 24177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010533562026
want to pay and not let this happen.
ಎಂಬ ಎಂಬ ಎಂಬ ಎಂಬ ಾಂ' ಾಂ' ಾಂ' ಾಂ' ೆದೆಯ ೆದೆಯ ೆದೆಯ ೆದೆಯ
1 08-
ಸಂIೇಶವನುK ಸಂIೇಶವನುK ಸಂIೇಶವನುK ಸಂIೇಶವನುK ಕಳD.:ದುM ಕಳD.:ದುM ಕಳD.:ದುM ಕಳD.:ದುM ಪNಕರಣದ ಪNಕರಣದ ಪNಕರಣದ ಪNಕರಣದ ತR\ಾ ತR\ಾ ತR\ಾ ತR\ಾ ಾಲದ ] ಾಲದ ] ಾಲದ ] ಾಲದ ] ಎ ಆ%ೋYಯನುK ಆ%ೋYಯನುK ಆ%ೋYಯನುK ಆ%ೋYಯನುK ಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ
12-2025 . 353/2025
ರಂದು ರಂದು Iೆಹ Iೆಹ %ಾಜ)ದ %ಾಜ)ದ ೆಂ ೆಂ ಾNಂ_ ಾNಂ_ ೕ ೕ ಾೆ ಾೆ - ಸಂ\ೆ) ಸಂ\ೆ)
ರಂದು ರಂದು Iೆಹ Iೆಹ %ಾಜ)ದ %ಾಜ)ದ ೆಂ ೆಂ ಾNಂ_ ಾNಂ_ ೕ ೕ ಾೆ ಾೆ ಸಂ\ೆ) ಸಂ\ೆ)
ಪNಕರಣದ ] ಪNಕರಣದ ] ಪNಕರಣದ ಪNಕರಣದ ] ] ದಸCQ ದಸCQ ದಸCQ ದಸCQ (ಾ3 (ಾ3 (ಾ3 (ಾ3 ಾ)<ಾಂಗ ಾ)<ಾಂಗ ಾ)<ಾಂಗ ಾ)<ಾಂಗ ಬಂಧನೆ7 ಬಂಧನೆ7 ಬಂಧನ ಬಂಧನೆ7 ೆ7 ಒYb:ದುM ಒYb:ದುM ಒYb:ದುM ಒYb:ದುM ಾ)<ಾಂಗ ಾ)<ಾಂಗ ಾ)<ಾಂಗ ಾ)<ಾಂಗ ಬಂಧನದ ]ರುವ ಬಂಧನದ ]ರುವ ಬಂಧನದ ಬಂಧನದ ]ರುವ ]ರುವ
ಆ%ೋY<ಾದ ಆ%ೋY<ಾದ ಆ%ೋY<ಾದ ಆ%ೋY<ಾದ ಅಭd ಅಭd ಅಭd ಅಭd :ೕ :ೕ :ೕ :ೕ ಈತನನುK ತನನುK ತನನುK ತನನುK ೕ ೕ ೕ ೕ ಬಂಧನೆ7 ಬಂಧನೆ7 ಬಂಧನ ಬಂಧನೆ7 ೆ7 ಪeೆಯುವ ಪeೆಯುವ ಪeೆಯುವ ಪeೆಯುವ ಸಲುfಾQ ಸಲುfಾQ ಸಲುfಾQ ಸಲುfಾQ ಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ
12-12-2025 45 . . . ,
ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು (ಾನ) (ಾನ) (ಾನ) (ಾನ) ೇ ೇ ೇ ೇ ಎ : gೆgೆgೆgೆ ಎಂ ಎಂ ಎಂ ಎಂ ಾ)<ಾಲಯದ ] ಾ)<ಾಲಯದ ] ಾ)<ಾಲಯದ ] ಾ)<ಾಲಯದ ] ಾ3fಾ%ೆಂh ಾ3fಾ%ೆಂh ಾ3fಾ%ೆಂh ಾ3fಾ%ೆಂh ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC
ಎಾ7hi ಎಾ7hi ಎ ಎಾ7hi ಾ7hi 1-ೕ 1-ೕ 1-ೕ 1-ೕ Rೕಡುವಂ;ೆ Rೕಡುವಂ;ೆ Rೕಡುವಂ;ೆ Rೕಡುವಂ;ೆ ೋದುM ೋದುM ೋದುM ೋದುM (ಾನ) (ಾನ) (ಾನ) (ಾನ) ಾ)<ಾಲಯವj ಾ)<ಾಲಯವj ಾ)<ಾಲಯವj ಾ)<ಾಲಯವj ಾ3fಾ%ೆಂh ಾ3fಾ%ೆಂh ಾ3fಾ%ೆಂh ಾ3fಾ%ೆಂh ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC
ಎಾ7hi ಎಾ7hi ಎ ಎಾ7hi ಾ7hi 1-ೕವನುK 1-ೕವನುK 1-ೕವನುK 1-ೕವನುK kೊರ3:ದುM kೊರ3:ದುM kೊರ3:ದುM kೊರ3:ದುM ಸದ ಸದ ಸದ ಸದ ಾ3fಾ%ೆಂh ಾ3fಾ%ೆಂh ಾ3fಾ%ೆಂh ಾ3fಾ%ೆಂh ಅನುK ಅನುK ಅನುK ಅನುK Iೆಹ Iೆಹ Iೆಹ Iೆಹ %ಾಜ)ದ %ಾಜ)ದ %ಾಜ)ದ %ಾಜ)ದ Lkಾ Lkಾ Lkಾ Lkಾ
16-12-2025 45 . . .
gೈ gೈlೆ4lೆ4lೆ4lೆ4 gೈ gೈ ಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು (ಾನ) (ಾನ) (ಾನ) (ಾನ) ೇ ೇ ೇ ೇ ಎ : gೆgೆgೆgೆ ಎಂ ಎಂ ಎಂ ಎಂ ಾ)<ಾಲಯಂದ ಾ)<ಾಲಯಂದ ಾ)<ಾಲಯಂದ ಾ)<ಾಲಯಂದ
- 45 . . .
kೊರ3:ದM kೊರ3:ದM kೊರ3:ದM kೊರ3:ದM ಾ3fಾ%ೆಂಟುK ಾ3fಾ%ೆಂಟುK ಾ3fಾ%ೆಂಟುK ಾ3fಾ%ೆಂಟುK gಾ gಾ gಾ gಾ (ಾ3ದುM (ಾ3ದುM (ಾ3ದುM (ಾ3ದುM ಆ%ೋYಯನುK ಆ%ೋYಯನುK ಆ%ೋYಯನುK ಆ%ೋYಯನುK (ಾನ) (ಾನ) (ಾನ) (ಾನ) ೇ ೇ ೇ ೇ ಎ : gೆgೆgೆgೆ ಎಂ ಎಂ ಎಂ ಎಂ
ಾ)<ಾಲಯೆ7 ಾ)<ಾಲಯೆ7 ಾ)<ಾಲಯೆ7 ಾ)<ಾಲಯೆ7 kಾಜರು kಾಜರು kಾಜರು kಾಜರು ಪ3ಸಲು ಪ3ಸಲು ಪ3ಸಲು ಪ3ಸಲು ಎಾ7hi ಎಾ7hi ಎ ಎಾ7hi ಾ7hi 1-ೕ 1-ೕ 1-ೕ 1-ೕ ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ಸnEೕಯ ಸnEೕಯ ಸnEೕಯ ಸnEೕಯ ಾ)<ಾಲಯದ ] ಾ)<ಾಲಯದ ] ಾ)<ಾಲಯದ ] ಾ)<ಾಲಯದ ]
ಅನುಮL ಅನುಮL ಅನುಮL ಅನುಮL ೋದುM ೋದುM ೋದುM ೋದುM ಅಭd ಅಭd ಅಭd ಅಭd :ೕ :ೕ :ೕ :ೕ ಈತನನುK ಈತನನುK ಈತನನುK ಈತನನುK ಖುದುM ಖುದುM ಖುದುM ಖುದುM gೈ gೈ gೈ gೈ ಅ9ಾ ಅ9ಾ ಅ9 ಅ9ಾ ಾ ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC :ಬ$ಂಯವರು :ಬ$ಂಯವರು :ಬ$ಂ :ಬ$ಂಯವರು ಯವರು
. 12-12-2025 -
kಾಜರು kಾಜರು kಾಜರು kಾಜರು ಪ3ಸುವjIಾQ ಪ3ಸುವjIಾQ ಪ3ಸುವjIಾQ ಪ3ಸುವjIಾQ ಸೂ@:ರು;ಾC%ೆ ಸೂ@:ರು;ಾC%ೆ ಸೂ@:ರು;ಾC%ೆ ಸೂ@:ರು;ಾC%ೆ ಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ ಪNಕರಣದ ಪNಕರಣದ ಪNಕರಣದ ಪNಕರಣದ ಪNಮುಖ ಪNಮುಖ ಪNಮುಖ ಪNಮುಖ ಾW ಾW ಾW ಾW
2 .
ರವರ ರವರ kೇEೆಯನುK kೇE ೆಯನುK ಪeೆದುೊಂ3ರುತCIೆ ಪeೆದು ೊಂ3ರುತCIೆ
ರವರ ರವರ kೇEೆಯನುK kೇEೆಯನುK ಪeೆದುೊಂ3ರುತCIೆ ಪeೆದುೊಂ3ರುತCIೆ
20-03-2026
ಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು Iೆಹ ಯ Iೆಹ ಯ Iೆಹ Iೆಹ ಯ ಯ Lkಾ Lkಾ Lkಾ Lkಾ gೈಲK gೈಲK gೈಲK gೈಲK ಅ9ಾ ಅ9ಾ ಅ9 ಅ9ಾ ಾ ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC :ಬ$ಂಯವರು :ಬ$ಂಯವರು :ಬ$ಂ :ಬ$ಂಯವರು ಯವರು
45 . . .
ಆ%ೋY ಆ%ೋY ಆ%ೋY ಆ%ೋY ಅಭd ಅಭd ಅಭd ಅಭd :ೕ :ೕ :ೕ :ೕ ಈತನನುK ಈತನನುK ಈತನನುK ಈತನನುK (ಾನ) (ಾನ) (ಾನ) (ಾನ) ೇ ೇ ೇ ೇ ಎ : gೆgೆgೆgೆ ಎಂ ಎಂ ಎಂ ಎಂ ಾ)<ಾಲ ಾ)<ಾಲಯೆ7 ಾ)<ಾಲ ಾ)<ಾಲ ಯೆ7 ಯೆ7 ಯೆ7 kಾಜರು kಾಜರು kಾಜರು kಾಜರು
ಪ3:ದುM ಪ3:ದುM ಪ3:ದುM ಪ3:ದುM ಆ%ೋYಯನುK ಆ%ೋYಯನುK ಆ%ೋYಯನುK ಆ%ೋYಯನುK ೕ ೕ ೕ ೕ ಬಂಧನೆ7 ಬಂಧನೆ7 ಬಂಧನ ಬಂಧನೆ7 ೆ7 ಪeೆದುೊಂಡು ಪeೆದುೊಂಡು ಪeೆದು ಪeೆದುೊಂಡು ೊಂಡು ತR\ೆ ತR\ೆ ತR\ೆ ತR\ೆ ಮುಂದುವ%ೆ:ದುM ಮುಂದುವ%ೆ:ದುM ಮುಂದುವ%ೆ:ದುM ಮುಂದುವ%ೆ:ದುM
-2
ತR\ಾ ತR\ಾ ತR\ಾ ತR\ಾ ಾಲದ ] ಾಲದ ] ಾಲದ ] ಾಲದ ] ಆ%ೋY ಆ%ೋY ಆ%ೋY ಆ%ೋY ಅಭd ಅಭd ಅಭd ಅಭd :ೕ :ೕ :ೕ :ೕ ಈತನು ಈತನು ಈತನು ಈತನು ಾW ಾW ಾW ಾW ರವರನುK ರವರನುK ರವರನುK ರವರನುK ಪNಕರಣದ ] ಪNಕರಣದ ] ಪNಕರಣದ ಪNಕರಣದ ] ] :ಲುBಸುವ :ಲುBಸುವ :ಲುBಸುವ :ಲುBಸುವ
-2 1]
ಸಲುfಾQ ಸಲುfಾQ ಸಲುfಾQ ಸಲುfಾQ ಾW ಾW ಾW ಾW ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ kೆಸನ ] kೆಸನ ] kೆಸ kೆಸನ ] ನ ]
[email protected], 2]
[email protected], 3]
[email protected] 4]
[email protected] 5]
[email protected]
1ೕ2 1ೕ2 1ೕ2 1ೕ2 ಐ3 ಐ3ಗಳನುK ಐ3 ಐ3 ಗಳನುK ಗಳನುK kೊಸIಾQ ಗಳನುK kೊಸIಾQ kೊಸIಾQ kೊಸIಾQ
-2
ಸೃq: ಸೃq: ಸೃq ಸೃq: : ಾW ಾW ಾW ಾW ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ಮೂಲ ಮೂಲ ಮೂಲ ಮೂಲ 1ೕ2 1ೕ2 1ೕ2 1ೕ2 ಐ3 ಐ3 ಐ3 ಐ3 ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC ಮತುC - ೈ2 - ೈ2 - - ೈ2 ೈ2 ನಂಬ ನಂಬ ನಂಬ ನಂಬ ಅನುK ಅನುK ಅನುK ಅನುK ಬE: ಬE: ಬE: ಬE: ೊಂಡು ೊಂಡು ೊಂಡು ೊಂಡು
<[email protected]>
ಐ3Hಂದ ಐ3Hಂದ
ಐ3Hಂದ ಐ3Hಂದ
<[email protected]> This is a warning
ಈ 1ೕ2 1ೕ2 1ೕ2 1ೕ2 ಐ3ೆ ಐ3ೆ ಐ3 ಐ3ೆ ೆ
from the Jaish-e-Mohammed White collar terror team, we
targeted Kempegowda International Airport Bengaluru,
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47735
WP No. 24177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010533562026
Orion mall, Lulu Mali, Forum South mall, Mantri Square
Mall, Lulu Mall for bomb blast at 7pm onwards. Thanks to
our allah and our master mohit to serve better to our
nation. +91 9368318077 call us if you want to pay and
not let this happen.
ಎಂಬ ಎಂಬ ಎಂಬ ಎಂಬ ಾಂ' ಾಂ' ಾಂ' ಾಂ' ೆದೆಯ ೆದೆಯ ೆದೆಯ ೆದೆಯ ಸಂIೇಶವನುK ಸಂIೇಶವನುK ಸಂIೇಶವನುK ಸಂIೇಶವನುK ಆ%ೋY ಆ%ೋY ಆ%ೋY ಆ%ೋY ಅಭd ಅಭd ಅಭd ಅಭd
.
:ೕ :ೕ :ೕ :ೕ ಈತನು ಈತನು ಈತನು ಈತನು ಕಳD. ಕಳD.:ರುವjದು ಕಳD. ಕಳD. :ರುವjದು :ರುವjದು :ರುವjದು ತR\ೆHಂದ ತR\ೆHಂದ ತR\ೆHಂದ ತR\ೆHಂದ ಧೃಢ ಧೃಢ ಧೃಢ ಧೃಢ ಪsರುತCIೆ ಪsರುತCIೆ ಪs ಪsರುತCIೆ ರುತCIೆ ಆದMಂದ ಆದMಂದ ಆದM ಆದMಂದ ಂದ ಆ%ೋYಯ ಆ%ೋYಯ ಆ%ೋYಯ ಆ%ೋYಯ ರುದt ರುದt ರುದt ರುದt
66( ) , 351(4) -2023
ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ 3 ಐs ಐs ಆu ಆu ಮತುC ಮತುC ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ vಎಎ vಎ ಎ ಅ3ಯ ] ಅ3ಯ ] Iೋwಾ%ೋಪಣ Iೋwಾ%ೋಪಣ
ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ ಐs ಐs ಆu ಆu ಮತುC ಮತುC ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ vಎಎ vಎಎ ಅ3ಯ ] ಅ3ಯ ] Iೋwಾ%ೋಪಣ Iೋwಾ%ೋಪಣ
.
ಪsಯನುK ಪsಯನುK ಪs ಪsಯನುK ಯನುK ಸ ]:ರುತCIೆ ಸ ]:ರುತCIೆ ಸ ಸ ]:ರುತCIೆ ]:ರುತCIೆ
1
ಎ ಆ%ೋYಯು ಆ%ೋYಯು ಆ%ೋYಯು ಆ%ೋYಯು <ಾವjIೇ <ಾವjIೇ <ಾವjIೇ <ಾವjIೇ ಭxೕ;ಾbದೆ ಭxೕ;ಾbದೆ ಭxೕ;ಾbದ ಭxೕ;ಾbದೆ ೆ ಕೃತ)fೆಸಗುವ ಕೃತ)fೆಸಗುವ ಕೃತ)fೆಸಗುವ ಕೃತ)fೆಸಗುವ ಉIೆMೕಶಲ]ದ ಉIೆMೕಶಲ]ದ ಉIೆMೕಶಲ]ದ ಉIೆMೕಶಲ]ದ ಾರಣ ಾರಣ ಾರಣ ಾರಣ
-2
ಆ%ೋYಯು ಆ%ೋYಯು ಆ%ೋYಯು ಆ%ೋYಯು ಾW ಾW ಾW ಾW ರವರನುK ರವರನುK ರವರನುK ರವರನುK ಪNಕರಣದ ] ಪNಕರಣದ ] ಪNಕರಣದ ಪNಕರಣದ ] ] :ಲುBಸುವ :ಲುBಸುವ :ಲುBಸುವ :ಲುBಸುವ ಉIೆMೕಶಂದ ಉIೆMೕಶಂದ ಉIೆMೕಶ ಉIೆMೕಶಂದ ಂದ (ಾ3ರುವ (ಾ3ರುವ (ಾ3ರುವ (ಾ3ರುವ
66( )
ಕೃತ)fಾQರುವjದಂದ ಕೃತ)fಾQರುವjದಂದ ಕೃತ)fಾQರುವjದ ಕೃತ)fಾQರುವjದಂದ ಂದ ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ ಎz ಎz ಎz ಎz ಐs ಐs ಐs ಐs ಆu ಆu ಆu ಆu ಅನುK ಅನುK ಅನುK ಅನುK Iೋwಾ%ೋಪಣ Iೋwಾ%ೋಪಣ Iೋwಾ%ೋಪಣ Iೋwಾ%ೋಪಣ ಪsHಂದ ಪsHಂದ ಪs ಪsHಂದ Hಂದ ೈ ೈ ೈ ೈ
.”
vsರುತCIೆ vsರುತCIೆ vs vsರುತCIೆ ರುತCIೆ
(Emphasis added at each instance)
A conjoint reading of the complaint and the summary of
the charge sheet would reveal a disturbing sequence of events.
What is alleged is not merely the dispatch of an electronic mail
containing an empty threat. The prosecution projects a
deliberate act of creating electronic identities in the name of
another, employing those identities to transmit threats of bomb
blasts, invoking the name of a proscribed terrorist organisation
and thereby setting in motion the machinery entrusted with the
maintenance of public safety and security. The alleged object
of implicating another person does not, by itself, render the
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47735
WP No. 24177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010533562026
conduct any less serious. A false threat of terrorism is not
rendered innocuous merely because the person issuing it
never intended to execute the threatened act.
10. The gravity of such conduct lies not merely in
the possibility of the threatened event materialising, but
also in the fear that the threat is capable of generating,
the disruption it may occasion and the diversion of public
resources that its verification inevitably entails. A threat
of this nature compels the State to act, for the law
enforcement machinery cannot afford the luxury of
presuming that a threat to public safety is a hoax. It
must proceed on the side of caution, lest indifference to
a genuine warning culminate in consequences too grave
to contemplate.
11. The allegations, therefore, cannot be viewed through
the narrow prism of a private dispute between individuals. The
alleged conduct, though said to have originated in personal
animosity, travelled far beyond the confines of that animosity
and entered the realm of public safety. The material collected
during investigation, at this stage, furnishes a prima facie
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47735
WP No. 24177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010533562026
foundation for examining the offences alleged in the charge
sheet, subject necessarily to satisfaction of their respective
statutory ingredients.
12. It becomes apposite to notice Section 351(4) of the
BNS and Section 66D of the Act. Section 351(4) of the BNS
reads as follows:
“Section 351 – Criminal Intimidation:
…. …. ….
(4) Whoever commits the offence of criminal
intimidation by an anonymous communication, or
having taken precaution to conceal the name or
abode of the person from whom the threat comes,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two
years, in addition to the punishment provided for
the offence under sub-section (1).”
12.1. Section 66D of the Act reads as follows:
“66-D. Punishment for cheating by
personation by using computer resource.—Whoever,
by means of any communication device or computer
resource cheats by personation, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years and shall also be
liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.”
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47735
WP No. 24177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010533562026
Section 351(4) of the BNS deals with an aggravated form
of criminal intimidation, where the threat is conveyed through
an anonymous communication or where the person issuing the
threat has taken precautions to conceal his name or abode. The
provision must be read in conjunction with the substantive
ingredients of criminal intimidation under Section 351(1). The
anonymity or concealment contemplated under sub-section (4)
does not constitute an offence divorced from criminal
intimidation; it is an additional circumstance that attracts the
enhanced punishment contemplated by the provision.
12.2. Section 66D of the Act, on the other hand, deals
with cheating by personation through a communication device
or computer resource. The provision is directed against the
misuse of electronic technology to assume the identity of
another and thereby commit cheating by personation. The
employment of a computer resource or electronic
communication is the medium through which the offence is
committed; personation and the ingredients of cheating remain
indispensable to its attraction.
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47735
WP No. 24177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010533562026
13. In the case at hand, the prosecution alleges that the
petitioner created multiple electronic mail accounts in the name
of witness No.2, employed the identity particulars of the said
witness and thereafter transmitted a communication purporting
to emanate from a terrorist organisation, threatening bomb
blasts at prominent public establishments. The alleged
concealment of the actual author of the communication,
coupled with the use of electronic identities attributable to
another person, constitutes material germane to the offences
invoked. Whether the threatening communication satisfies all
the ingredients of criminal intimidation and whether the alleged
impersonation was accompanied by the deception and
inducement necessary to constitute cheating by personation are
matters that must be determined upon appreciation of the
evidence.
14. The contention projected by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, that the internet connection available to the
petitioner was not functional on the date of the incident, does
not commend acceptance as a ground for terminating the
prosecution at its threshold. The argument proceeds on the
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47735
WP No. 24177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010533562026
premise that because a particular internet connection was
allegedly inoperative, the petitioner could not have transmitted
the offending electronic mail. Such a proposition, in the
realm of electronic communications, is far too fragile to
sustain the weight of quashment.
15. An electronic mail account is not inextricably tied to a
particular computer, a particular internet connection or a
particular geographical location. Access to an electronic mail
account may be secured through different devices, networks
and modes of connectivity. The alleged failure of one internet
connection, therefore, does not by itself establish the
impossibility of transmitting an electronic communication
through another available means. The complaint lodged by the
petitioner with his Internet Service Provider may constitute a
circumstance available to him in defence; it cannot, without
more, be elevated into conclusive proof that the alleged
communication could not have originated from him.
16. Whether the internet connection was indeed
inoperative, the duration of such inoperability, the devices
through which the electronic mail accounts were accessed, the
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47735
WP No. 24177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010533562026
electronic trail associated with the offending communication
and the evidentiary worth of the material collected by the
investigating agency are all matters requiring examination in
accordance with law. The jurisdiction of this Court to quash
criminal proceedings cannot be converted into a forum for
adjudicating such disputed questions of fact or for conducting a
mini-trial on the strength of competing documentary
assertions.
17. These are all disputed questions of fact, which require
to be trashed out in a full blown trial. The Apex Court in the
case of KAPTAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
reported in (2021) 9 SCC 35, has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted
that in the present case the High Court in exercise
of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,, has quashed
the criminal proceedings for the offences under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is
required to be noted that when the High Court in
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,,
quashed the criminal proceedings, by the time the
investigating officer after recording the statement
of the witnesses, statement of the complainant and
collecting the evidence from the incident place and
after taking statement of the independent
witnesses and even statement of the accused
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47735
WP No. 24177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010533562026
persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the
learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections
147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the
learned Magistrate also took the cognizance. From
the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam
Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed
by the High Court, it does not appear that the High Court
took into consideration the material collected during the
investigation/inquiry and even the statements recorded.
If the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,, was at
the stage of FIR in that case the allegations in the
FIR/complaint only are required to be considered
and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or
not is required to be considered. However,
thereafter when the statements are recorded,
evidence is collected and the charge-sheet is filed
after conclusion of the investigation/inquiry the
matter stands on different footing and the Court is
required to consider the material/evidence
collected during the investigation. Even at this stage
also, as observed and held by this Court in a catena of
decisions, the High Court is not required to go into the
merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of
the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate
jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by this
Court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel [Dineshbhai
Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104 :
(2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 683] in order to examine as to
whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable
offence or not, the High Court cannot act like the
investigating agency nor can exercise the powers like an
appellate court. It is further observed and held that that
question is required to be examined keeping in view, the
contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring
no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot
appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own
inferences from contents of FIR and material relied
on. It is further observed it is more so, when the
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47735
WP No. 24177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010533562026
material relied on is disputed. It is further observed
that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the
investigating authority at such stage to probe and
then of the court to examine questions once the
charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to
how far and to what extent reliance can be placed
on such material.
9.2. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar [Dhruvaram
Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC
191 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 672] after considering the
decisions of this Court in Bhajan Lal [State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992
SCC (Cri) 426] , it is held by this Court that exercise of
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,, to quash the
proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is further
observed that inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C.,, though wide is to be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when
such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid
down in the section itself. It is further observed
that appreciation of evidence is not permissible at
the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. , Similar view has
been expressed by this Court in Arvind
Khanna [CBI v. Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686 :
(2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 94] , Managipet [State of
Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87 : (2020) 3
SCC (Cri) 702] and in XYZ [XYZ v. State of Gujarat,
(2019) 10 SCC 337 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 173] , referred
to hereinabove.
9.3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we
are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its
jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47735
WP No. 24177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010533562026
10. The High Court has failed to appreciate and
consider the fact that there are very serious triable
issues/allegations which are required to be gone into and
considered at the time of trial. The High Court has lost
sight of crucial aspects which have emerged during the
course of the investigation. The High Court has failed to
appreciate and consider the fact that the document i.e. a
joint notarised affidavit of Mamta Gupta Accused 2 and
Munni Devi under which according to Accused 2 Ms
Mamta Gupta, Rs 25 lakhs was paid and the possession
was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. It is
required to be noted that in the registered agreement to
sell dated 27-10-2010, the sale consideration is stated to
be Rs 25 lakhs and with no reference to payment of Rs 25
lakhs to Ms Munni Devi and no reference to handing over
the possession. However, in the joint notarised affidavit of
the same date i.e. 27-10-2010 sale consideration is
stated to be Rs 35 lakhs out of which Rs 25 lakhs is
alleged to have been paid and there is a reference to
transfer of possession to Accused 2. Whether Rs 25 lakhs
has been paid or not the accused have to establish during
the trial, because the accused are relying upon the said
document and payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in
the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010. It is also
required to be considered that the first agreement to sell
in which Rs 25 lakhs is stated to be sale consideration and
there is reference to the payment of Rs 10 lakhs by
cheques. It is a registered document. The aforesaid are
all triable issues/allegations which are required to be
considered at the time of trial. The High Court has failed
to notice and/or consider the material collected during the
investigation.
11. Now so far as the finding recorded by the High
Court that no case is made out for the offence under
Section 406 IPC is concerned, it is to be noted that the
High Court itself has noted that the joint notarised
affidavit dated 27-10-2010 is seriously disputed, however
as per the High Court the same is required to be
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47735
WP No. 24177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010533562026
considered in the civil proceedings. There the High Court
has committed an error. Even the High Court has failed to
notice that another FIR has been lodged against the
accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471
IPC with respect to the said alleged joint notarised
affidavit. Even according to the accused the possession
was handed over to them. However, when the payment of
Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit is
seriously disputed and even one of the cheques out of 5
cheques each of Rs 2 lakhs was dishonoured and
according to the accused they were handed over the
possession (which is seriously disputed) it can be said to
be entrustment of property. Therefore, at this stage to
opine that no case is made out for the offence under
Section 406 IPC is premature and the aforesaid aspect is
to be considered during trial. It is also required to be
noted that the first suit was filed by Munni Devi and
thereafter subsequent suit came to be filed by the
accused and that too for permanent injunction only.
Nothing is on record that any suit for specific performance
has been filed. Be that as it may, all the aforesaid aspects
are required to be considered at the time of trial only.
12. Therefore, the High Court has grossly
erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by
entering into the merits of the allegations as if the
High Court was exercising the appellate jurisdiction
and/or conducting the trial. The High Court has
exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal
proceedings in exercise of powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C.,
13. Even the High Court has erred in observing that
original complaint has no locus. The aforesaid observation
is made on the premise that the complainant has not
placed on record the power of attorney along with the
counter filed before the High Court. However, when it is
specifically stated in the FIR that Munni Devi has
executed the power of attorney and thereafter the
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47735
WP No. 24177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010533562026
investigating officer has conducted the investigation and
has recorded the statement of the complainant, accused
and the independent witnesses, thereafter whether the
complainant is having the power of attorney or not is to
be considered during trial.
14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam
Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed
by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings in
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is
unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and
set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Now,
the trial is to be conducted and proceeded further in
accordance with law and on its own merits. It is made
clear that the observations made by this Court in the
present proceedings are to be treated to be confined to
the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only and the
trial court to decide the case in accordance with law and
on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence to be
laid and without being influenced by any of the
observations made by us hereinabove. The present
appeal is accordingly allowed.”
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)
What cannot be lost sight of is the nature of the
threat alleged to have been communicated. The
Team of Jaish-e-
electronic mail proclaimed that the
Mohammed
had targeted the Kempegowda International
Airport and several shopping malls in Bengaluru for
bomb blasts commencing at 7.00 p.m. It also carried a
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47735
WP No. 24177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010533562026
demand for payment to avert the threatened occurrence.
A communication of this nature is capable of striking fear
into the minds of citizens and compelling an immediate
response from the authorities responsible for public
18. The law cannot permit the electronic medium to
become a convenient cloak behind which an individual
may, with impunity, assume another's identity, issue
threats of catastrophic violence and thereafter seek
immunity from prosecution on the strength of a disputed
assertion concerning internet connectivity. A threat
transmitted through a keyboard may occasion
consequences as real as one delivered in person.
19. The liberty of an individual is undoubtedly
precious and must remain protected against
prosecutions bereft of legal foundation. But that liberty
cannot be construed as a license to allegedly
manufacture threats of public catastrophe, disturb civic
tranquility and then demand that the prosecution be
extinguished without the allegations being subjected to
judicial scrutiny.
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47735
WP No. 24177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010533562026
20. In the circumstances obtaining in the case at hand,
the petitioner's assertion regarding the non-functioning of his
internet connection is, at best, a matter of defense which must
receive its due consideration at the appropriate stage. It is not
a circumstance of such unimpeachable and incontrovertible
character as would, by itself, demolish the prosecution case at
its inception.
21. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be relieved of the
criminal proceedings merely upon the solitary contention that
the internet connection was allegedly defunct on 30.11.2025.
The evidentiary questions concerning the authorship,
transmission and attribution of the offending electronic mail, as
also the satisfaction of the ingredients of the offences alleged,
must be tested before the competent criminal Court. The
extraordinary jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings is
intended to prevent abuse of the process of law; it is not
intended to prematurely foreclose a prosecution merely
because the accused projects a factual defense, which requires
evidentiary examination.
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:47735
WP No. 24177 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010533562026
22. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands
rejected.
I.A.No.1/2026 stands disposed, as a consequence.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
NVJ/List No.: 3 Sl No.: 20