Allowed¶73

Rohan Cariappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2025CRL.P/985/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court quashing petition; Crl.P. No. 985 of 2025; Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar; Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS; Sections 67 and 67(a) Information Technology Act; FIR Crime No.32/2024 dated 22.07.2024; Cyber Crime Police Station Bengaluru; complaint dated 22.07.2024; charge-sheet; C.C.No.3650/2025; cognizance and summons dated 31.01.2025; 45th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court Bengaluru; Instagram channel/reel; hearing and speech impaired persons depicted comically; bald vague general and omnibus allegations; proceedings quashed insofar as petitioners concerned.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.3650/2025 (arising out of Crime No.32/2024) pending on the file of the 45th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, are quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

Rohan Cariappa Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶73

Issue for consideration

Whether the complaint dated 22.07.2024, the FIR in Crime No.32/2024, the charge-sheet, the cognizance/summons dated 31.01.2025 and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.3650/2025 under Sections 67 and 67(a) of the Information Technology Act should be quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

The criminal petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.3650/2025 are quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

¶72

Ratio / Principle

The allegations made in the complaint, as reiterated in the statements of witnesses and the charge-sheet, do not attract the ingredients for the offences punishable under Sections 67 and 67(a) of the Information Technology Act.

¶69

Key takeaways

Except for bald, vague, general and omnibus allegations, specific incidents and allegations against the petitioners-accused are conspicuously absent in the impugned complaint, FIR and charge-sheet.ratio¶69
The absence of specific incidents and allegations is sufficient to conclude that the impugned proceedings against the petitioners deserve to be quashed.ratio¶69

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Single-Judge order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar) dated 02.07.2025 in Crl.P. No. 985 of 2025, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (invoked as Section 528 BNSS) by two accused persons seeking quashing of a complaint dated 22.07.2024 filed by the second respondent, the resulting FIR in Crime No.32/2024 registered under Sections 67 and 67(a) of the Information Technology Act, the charge-sheet, and the order of taking cognizance and issuance of summons dated 31.01.2025, all pending in C.C.No.3650/2025 before the 45th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru. The grievance arose from content allegedly posted by the petitioners on their Instagram channel depicting persons impaired with hearing and speech in a comical way. The Court held that the allegations, repeated in the statements of witnesses and the charge-sheet, were bald, vague, general and omnibus, that specific incidents and allegations against the accused were conspicuously absent, and that the material did not attract the ingredients of Sections 67 and 67(a) of the I.T. Act; accordingly, the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.3650/2025 were quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned. The second respondent was served with notice but chose not to contest the petition and remained unrepresented.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:23677 CRL.P No. 985 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 985 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ROHAN CARIAPPA, S/O D.M. CARIAPPA

¶9

AGED ABOUT 30 YEAR MOKSHA VILLA, 6^TH BLOCK,

¶10

VISHWSHIAH LAYOUT,

¶11

NEAR ULLAL UPANAGAR POST OFFICE, ULLALU UPANAGAR,

¶12

BENGALURU – 560 056. #703, KRSHNA HERITAGE,

¶13

SHAYAN BHATTACHARYA S/O. BISWAJIT BHATTACHARJEE, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, FLAT NO.203,

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

VENKATESHWARA ENCLAVE, 5^TH MAIN ROAD (MARKET ROAD,) NEAR RAMA TEMPLE, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BENGALURU – 560 075.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. PRATEEK G. & SRI. KARTHIK V., ADVOCATES)

¶18

AND:

¶19

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, BENGALURU – 560 042

¶20

REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶21

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001

¶22

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:23677 CRL.P No. 985 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

SHANKAR K. H., AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT WARD NO.12, IN FRONT OF TALUK OFFICE, TB ROAD, KADURU, CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577 548 KARNATAKA

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1; R2 – SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶28

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 22.07.2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 45^TH ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, AT BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:

¶32

“i. Quash the Complaint dated 22.07.2024 pending on the file of the 45^th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, at Bengaluru.

¶33

ii. Quash the FIR in Crime No.32/2024 dated 22.07.2024 registered by the Respondent – Cyber Crime Police, Bengaluru for the offences under Section 67 and 67(a) of the Information and Technology Act pending on the file of the 45^th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru.

¶34

iii. Quash the entire charge-sheet in C.C.No.3650/2025 for offences under Sections 67 and 67(a) of the I.T. Act,

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:23677 CRL.P No. 985 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

1860 pending on the file of the XXXV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate Court, at Bengaluru.

¶39

iv. Quash the order of taking cognizance and issuance of summons dated 31.01.2025 in C.C.NO.3650/2025 by the XXXXV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate Court, at Bengaluru.

¶40

v. Consequently, quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.3650/2025 pending on the file of 45^th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, at Bengaluru; and

¶41

vi. Pass such other Order which is deemed fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

¶42

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶43

HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

¶44

Though respondent No.2 was served with notice of this petition, he has not chosen to contest the petition and has remained unrepresented.

¶45

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2 filed the instant complaint against the petitioner on 22.07.2024, which is registered as FIR in Crime No.32/2024 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 67 and 67(a) of the Information Technology Act. In pursuance of the same, charge sheet was filed, which is currently pending in C.C.No.3650/2025.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:23677 CRL.P No. 985 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

According to respondent No.2, the petitioners are alleged to have posted the content on their Instagram channel showing the persons who are impaired with hearing and speech in a comical way, thereby hurting the sentiments of such people.

¶50

The complaint which led to registration of FIR in Crime

¶51

No.32/2024 by respondent No.1-Police is as under:

¶52

“ gÀªÀjUÉ, ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï E£ïì ¥ÉPÀÖgï ¸ÉÊ§gï PÉæöÊA ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ.

¶53

EAzÀ, ±ÀAPÀgï PÉ.ºÉZï.©£ï PÉ.ºÉZï.ºÉÆ£Àß¥Àà, ªÀAiÀÄ¸ÀÄì 58 ªÀµÀð, ªÁqÀð £ÀA.12 vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ D¦üÃ¸ï ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀ, n.©.gÀ¸ÉÛ, PÀqÀÆgÀÄ, aPÀÌªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè, ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.9448007004

¶54

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ

¶55

«µÀAiÀÄ: Instragram s¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀ eÁ®vÁtzÀ°è gÉÆÃºÀ£ï PÁjAiÀÄ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E£ÉÆß§â ªÀåQÛ «rAiÉÆÃUÀ¼À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ QªÀÅqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÆPÀgÀ CAUÀ«PÀ®vÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß D£ï ¯ÉÊ£ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ C²èÃ®ªÁV ©A©¹ C¥ÀºÁ¸Àå ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è PÀÈvÀåªÉ¸ÀVgÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ zÀÆgÀÄ.

¶56

¶57

£Á£ÀÄ F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdåzÀ QªÀÅqÀgÀ PÉëÃªÀiÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¸ÀAWÀzÀ UËgÀªÁzsÀåPÀë£ÁVgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. ¢£ÁAPÀ 16/07/2024 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 4.00 UÀAqÉAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ UÁA¢üÃ£ÀUÀgÀzÀ ªÉÆÃw ªÀÄºÀ¯ï ºÉÆmÉÃ¯ï £À°ègÀÄªÁUÀ £À£Àß ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï

¶58

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:23677 CRL.P No. 985 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

¥sÉÆÃ£ï £À°è Instragram £À°è «rAiÉÆÃUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃqÀÄwÛgÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀgÉ CzÀgÀ°è gÉÆÃºÀ£ï PÁjAiÀÄ¥Àà ( ID-@rohancariyappa) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E£ÉÆß§â (ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ «¼Á¸À UÉÆwÛ®è) F E§âgÀÄ ªÀåQÛºÀ¼ÀÄ QªÀÅqÀgÀ §UÉÎ ¸À£Éß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀAeÁå ¨sÁµÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ QªÀÅqÀgÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀªÀiÁdzÀ°è PÉlÖ ¨sÁªÀ£É §gÀÄªÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è C²èÃ®ªÁV «rAiÉÆÃ vÀAiÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁr F »AzÉ D£ï ¯ÉÊ£ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ E£ï¸ÁÖUÁæA ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀ eÁ®vÁtzÀ°è C¥ï¯ÉÆÃqï ªÀiÁr zÉÃ±ÁzÀåAvÀ EgÀÄªÀ QªÀÅqÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÆPÀgÀ ¸ÁévÀAvÀæöåPÉÌ zsÀPÉÌ §gÀÄªÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è PÀÈvÀåªÉ¸ÀVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F £ÀqÀÄªÀ½PÉ¬ÄAzÀ QªÀÅqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÆPÀgÀ WÀ£ÀvÉUÉ zsÀPÉÌ §gÀÄªÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è ©A©¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F PÀÈvÀåzÀ §UÉÎ ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁV http://www.instragram.com/reel/C9bsp9bN2pN/?igsh=MTlhZnJ3bX V4Y2VkMQ== F °APï£À°è PÀÈvÀåªÉ¸ÀVgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. «rAiÉÆÃzÀ°è EgÀÄªÀ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ §UÉÎ ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁV DvÀ£À ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ gÉÆÃºÀ£ï PÁjAiÀÄ¥Àà ©£ï PÁjAiÀÄ¥Àà r.JA. ªÁ¸À: £ÀA.2248, 6£ÉÃ ¨ÁèPï, J¸ï.JA.«. ¯ÉÃOmï, G¯Áè¼À G¥À £ÀUÀgÀ, ¥ÉÆÃ¸ïÖ D¦üÃ¸ï ºÀwÛgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ – 560056 JA§ÄzÁV w½zÀÄ§A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÀªÀÄä C¸ÉÆÃ¹AiÉÄÃµÀ£ï ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ zÉºÀ° ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ D£ï ¯ÉÊ£ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶62

DzÀÝjAzÀ zÉÃ±ÀzÁzÀåAvÀ EgÀÄªÀ QªÀÅqÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÆPÀgÀ ªÀvÀð£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C²èÃ®ªÁV ©A©¹ zsÀPÉÌ GAlÄªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ gÉÆÃºÀ£ï PÁjAiÀÄ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E£ÉÆß§â ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃw PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. £À£Àß ªÀÄ£À«AiÉÆA¢UÉ F »AzÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ zÀÆj£À £ÀPÀ®Ä, gÉÆÃºÀ£ï PÁjAiÀÄ¥Àà FvÀ£À r.J¯ï. eÉgÁPïì ªÀÄvÀÄÛ D¥Á¢vÀgÀÄUÀ½gÀÄªÀ ¨sÁªÀavÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.

¶63

ªÀAzÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ,

¶64

vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹, (±ÀAPÀgÀ K. H.)”

¶65

A perusal of the entire material on record will indicate that the allegations made in the complaint are reiterated in the

¶66

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:23677 CRL.P No. 985 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

Statement of Witnesses and charge sheet, all of which do not attract the ingredients for the offences punishable under Sections 67 and 67(a) of the Information Technology Act. It is also pertinent to note that except making bald, vague, general and omnibus allegations, specific incidents and allegations as against petitioners-accused are conspicuously absent in the impugned complaint, FIR and charge sheet, which is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the impugned proceedings against the petitioner deserves to be quashed.

¶70

In the result, I pass the following:

¶71

ORDER

¶72

i) The petition is allowed.

¶73

ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.3650/2025 (arising out of Crime No.32/2024 registered by respondent No.2 – Police) pending on the file of the 45^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, are hereby quashed.

¶74

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶75

BMC: List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22

Rohan Cariappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohan Cariappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhu N.S. Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Pankaja Ashok Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Innalli Veeranna @ Vs State by Women Police

Jithendra Kumar Vs State by

Shri Narasimhamurthy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Vijaykumar G Vs State of Karnataka