Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6159
CRL.P No. 1524 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RD
DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1524 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1. ASHISH JAIN
S/O. DINESH JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
TH
R/AT NO.1051, 5 MAIN,
D BLOCK, NEAR NAVARANGA,
ND
2 STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU – 560 010.
2. SOHANLAL PREMCHAND
S/O. PREMCHAND
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT NO.51, PUSHPAVATIKA
VANIVILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU – 560 010.
…PETITIONERS
Digitally signed
by SANJEEVINI
J KARISHETTY
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
(BY SRI C.V.NAGESH, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SRIVASTHAVA H.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ULSOOR GATE POICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6159
CRL.P No. 1524 of 2026
HC-KAR
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
ECONOMIC OFFENCES AND CYBERCRIME WING
YESHWANTHPUR
BENGALURU – 560 022.
3. SUNIL SHARMA
AGED MAJOR
NO.230/A, TANKA BAND ROAD,,
SUBRAMANYANAGAR,
BENGALURU CITY
KARNATAKA – 560 021.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1 AND R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CR.NO.253/2026 PENDING IN
RD
THE FILE OF 3 ACMM COURT, BENGALURU CITY BANGALORE
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RESTRAIN ITS MISUSE AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS AND SET ASIDE ALL PROCEEDINGS/ ACTIONS
EMANATING FROM IT IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE
CONCERNED AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO PROTECT THE
INTEREST OF PETITIONER BY PASSING APPROPRIATE ORDER
ST
OR SUITABLE DIRECTION TO THE 1 RESPONDENT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6159
CRL.P No. 1524 of 2026
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question a
notice issued by the respondent police in Crime No. 253 of
2026, on the score that it is not stated as to under what
provision of law the said notice is issued to summon the
petitioners.
2. Heard the learned senior Counsel Sri C. V. Nagesh
appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional State
Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 2.
3. Owing to the submissions made by the learned senior
Counsel, this Court had interdicted all further proceedings
against the petitioners by an order dated 31-01-2026, which
reads as follows:
“Heard the learned Senior counsel, Sri. C.V.
Nagesh, appearing for the petitioners.
Learned Addl. SPP waives notice for respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
Issue emergent notice to respondent No.3.
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6159
CRL.P No. 1524 of 2026
HC-KAR
The petitioners are not accused. They are not
proposed to be brought as accused also in the crime so
registered in Crime No.253/2025, but are repeatedly
being called by the police to appear before them under
what authority of law is not divulged.
Owing to constant harassment, it transpires that a
e-mail is communicated to the jurisdictional police before
whom Crime No.253/2025 had been registered that the
harassment is not stopping. The harassment from that
police station appears to have been transferred to another
police station which admittedly is not investigated into
Crime No.253/2025.
Learned Addl. SPP submits that the case has been
transferred to another police station, which has now
issued a notice. The notice is produced. The notice does
not indicate under what provision of law, is issued to the
petitioners to summon. If they are accused, it is open to
the police to issue a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, if
they are wanting as witnesses under Section 179 of the
BNSS. Neither of the two has happened. It is this action of the
police, which is now become rampant that has generated lot
of litigation before this Court. The notice now is termed as
Police Notice - 1 under what provision again as observed
hereinabove is not indicated. Therefore, the person who has
issued notice to these petitioners today i.e., 31.01.2026 shall
be present before the Court at 2:30 P.M. on 03.02.2026 .
All further action pursuant to the notice shall remain
stayed, till the next date of hearing.
Office objections to be complied with by evening of
02.02.2026, failing which, interim order would get vacated.
Hand delivery of the order is permitted.”
The contention is, there is constant harassment to the
petitioners not from one police station, but from different police
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6159
CRL.P No. 1524 of 2026
HC-KAR
stations. Therefore, the police notice issued was said to be
without authority of law.
4. The Police Sub Inspector of Malleswaram police station
was directed to be present, who is present before the Court and
would acknowledge that it was a mistake in issuance of a police
notice without indicating the provision of law.
5. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor places
the records of investigation and the necessity of recording the
statement of the petitioners. He would submit that in the crime
so registered, the other accused have divulged the role of these
st
petitioners also, particularly of the 1 petitioner in the episode
of crime and therefore, recording of the statement of the
st
petitioners or the 1 petitioner in particular, is imperative, for
the purpose of continuance of investigation in Crime No.253 of
2025.
6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would
admit that the officer in charge of different police stations have
called the petitioners, but would submit that it is only to decode
the apps that were found in the mobile of the accused, since
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6159
CRL.P No. 1524 of 2026
HC-KAR
the issue revolves round development of 4 apps to hoodwink
the Income Tax Department.
7. In that light, I deem it appropriate to dispose the
petition, with a direction to the petitioners to cooperate with
the investigation if needed and in the event, the petitioners are
drawn as accused at a later point in time, they are reserved
liberty to knock at the doors of this Court. In the garb of
investigation, it is needless to observe, that the Investigating
Officer would follow the due process of law and record the
statements of the petitioners and not by taking coercive action
against them.
With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands
disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
BKP
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1