Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash Case Against SIM Promoter Over 75 Allegedly Pre-Activated SIM Cards, Directs Cyber Command To Review Safeguards

HAL Police registered a suo motu case alleging that Mallikarjuna, a Jio promoter, had obtained customers’ Aadhaar particulars and photographs to procure unauthorised SIM activations and sell pre-activated cards

The charge sheet alleged that he possessed 55 Jio SIM cards and 20 Vodafone SIM cards, activated in the names of different individuals, and sought to sell them

The petitioner maintained that he was authorised to possess Jio SIM cards for sale, had not activated them, and that the Area Manager’s statement confirmed promoters received only non-activated cards

The State relied on a memo identifying persons in whose names the cards were allegedly activated

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings under Sections 406, 419 and 420 IPC, invoking the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS

Whether the complaint and investigation material disclosed circumstances warranting trial, or whether continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process justifying quashing

Whether the alleged unauthorised activation and circulation of SIM cards warranted preventive directions concerning safeguards and oversight

The petition invoked Sections 406, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, concerning criminal breach of trust, cheating by personation and cheating, respectively

The Court considered its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, corresponding to Section 528 BNSS, which may be exercised to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice

At the quashing stage, the Court does not ordinarily conduct a detailed assessment of disputed evidence or decide witness credibility; where the allegations and accompanying material disclose a prima facie case requiring adjudication, the accused’s alternative explanation is generally a matter for trial

Possession of a SIM card, including one registered in another person’s name, does not by itself establish every alleged offence; the prosecution must prove each offence’s statutory ingredients, including the required dishonest or fraudulent intention, entrustment and misappropriation where relevant, and the circumstances of impersonation or cheating

No judicial precedent was cited.

The Court held that the petitioner’s employment with Jio could explain his possession of Jio SIM cards but did not, at this stage, explain his alleged possession of 20 Vodafone cards

The Area Manager’s evidence that promoters received non-activated cards, considered alongside the allegation that the recovered cards were already activated in third parties’ names, raised questions about how they were activated and came into the petitioner’s possession

The petitioner’s claim that he had not personally activated the cards did not resolve the issues of his knowledge, custody or attempted sale; those matters required evidence at trial

The Court therefore declined to assess guilt or determine whether any further offence had been committed, but concluded that the cumulative material warranted trial rather than quashing

It also considered the alleged facts sufficient to prompt examination of safeguards against unauthorised activation and circulation of SIM cards

The Court directed the Director General of Police, Cyber Command, to examine the broader issue and consider appropriate coordination with police authorities and directions to the concerned operators regarding SIM-card custody, inventory, activation procedures, customer verification, complaints and intermediary oversight, subject to applicable law

The matter was ordered to be relisted on 27 November 2026 to report compliance, and the HCGP was directed to inform the DGP