Karnataka HC Quashes Tax-Account Hacking Case Against Complainant’s Wife, Finding No Complaint Allegation And No Evidence Of The Email

Respondent No. 2 complained that his Income Tax account had been accessed without authorisation; the complaint and FIR named Arvind G. as the accused.

Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed against Arvind, Madhusudan K. Nagara (Accused No. 2), and the petitioner, L. Roopa (Accused No. 3), for alleged offences under Sections 66B and 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

In an earlier proceeding, the High Court had quashed the case against Accused No. 2, finding that the allegation that he had emailed Accused No. 3 was unsupported by the charge-sheet material.

Roopa sought quashing of the proceedings against her under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS.

The Court considered its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, corresponding to Section 528 BNSS, to quash criminal proceedings where the available material does not disclose an offence and continuation would amount to an abuse of process.

The alleged offences were under Sections 66B and 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The Court also applied the doctrine of parity, relying on its earlier order in Crl.P. No. 2916/2025, which had quashed proceedings against Accused No. 2 because the alleged email to Accused No. 3 was not substantiated by the investigation material.

The Court found that the original complaint and FIR contained no allegation against the petitioner.

The charge sheet’s only relevant assertion was that Accused No. 2 had sent an email to the petitioner, but the alleged email was not produced and was not supported by the witness statements or other prosecution material.

Because the same unsupported email allegation had formed the basis for quashing proceedings against Accused No. 2, the Court applied parity and concluded that the material did not disclose an offence by the petitioner.

It also noted that the petitioner was the complainant’s wife and that she had instituted matrimonial proceedings against him, but its conclusion rested on the absence of supporting allegations and evidence.