Chandrashekar Mayya v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Apr 2025WP/7527/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Bengaluru; NC: 2025:KHC:15747; WP No. 7527 of 2025 (GM-RES); decided 16.04.2025 by Justice Hemant Chandangoudar. Petitioner Chandrashekar Mayya (accused No.2) sought quashing of CC No. 9/2024 proceedings (Ss. 66E, 67A IT Act 2000; Ss. 4, 6 Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act 1986) arising from alleged circulation of an obscene video reported on 02.07.2019. Petition disposed of, not quashed; liberty to seek discharge before Trial Court. Advocates: Sachin .B.S (petitioner); Rahul Rai, HCGP (respondents).

What did the court decide?

Petition not quashed; liberty reserved to the petitioner to file an appropriate application for discharge before the Trial Court and to raise all contentions urged before this Court during the course of trial. ¶¶30

Chandrashekar Mayya Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings in CC No. 9/2024 pending against the petitioner (accused No.2) for offences under Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 should be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶¶20

Court's answer

The allegations made against the petitioner disclose the commission of the offences as stated in the charge sheet.

¶¶29

Ratio / Principle

The veracity of the allegations can be determined only during the course of the trial by the competent court.

¶¶29

Key takeaways

The petition stands disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application for discharge and to raise all contentions urged before this Court during the course of trial.ratio¶¶30
If an application for discharge is filed, the Trial Court shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law and on its own merits.ratio¶¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 by Chandrashekar Mayya, accused No.2 charge-sheeted in CC No. 9/2024 (Prl. Senior Civil Judge and ACJM Court, Puttur) for offences under Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, seeking quashing of proceedings registered by Puttur Police following a 02.07.2019 informant report of circulation of an obscene video depicting college students. Held: the allegations disclose commission of the offences and their veracity can be determined only at trial; the petition was disposed of with liberty to file a discharge application, which the Trial Court must consider in accordance with law and on its own merits.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:15747 WP No. 7527 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 7527 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

CHANDRASHEKAR MAYYA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE GANAPATHI MAYYA R/AT BAYAMBE HOUSE, NEHRU NAGAR KASABA VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK PUTTUR, DK - 574 203.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SACHIN .B.S, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER PUTTUR CITY POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

NAGAPPA BENAKATTI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS PUTTUR TOWN POLICE STATION PUTTUR KASABA VILLAGE DK - 574 201.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15747 WP No. 7527 of 2025

¶20

PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 9/2024, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM COURT, PUTTUR, D.K REGISTERED BY THE PUTTUR POLICE SO FOR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNERD FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC 66E, 67(A) OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 AND UNDER SEC 4 AND 6 OF INDECENT REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN (PROHIBITION) ACT, 1986.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER DICTATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner (accused No.2), who has been charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, is before this Court seeking appropriate relief.

¶25

The prosecution alleges that a Police Constable, serving at the Puttur City Police Station, was assigned beat duty within the jurisdiction of Puttur Taluk. As part of his routine duties, he patrolled the area, interacted with local residents and informants to address public grievances, and monitored illegal activities. On 02.07.2019, during his beat patrol, an informant

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15747 WP No. 7527 of 2025

¶27

reported the circulation of an obscene video depicting a group of students engaging in indecent physical acts in a public place. One of the boys was allegedly seen recording the act, and all individuals involved appeared to be college students. The circulation of this obscene video among the public is said to have disrupted the peace in the locality, caused dishonour to women, and posed a threat to public order.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.

¶29

The allegations made against the petitioner disclose the commission of the offences as stated in the charge sheet. The veracity of these allegations can be determined only during the course of the trial by the competent court.

¶30

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application for discharge and to raise all contentions urged before this Court during the course of trial.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:15747 WP No. 7527 of 2025

¶33

If such an application for discharge is filed, the Trial Court shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law and on its own merits.

¶34

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶35

MKM/NBM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 74

Chandrashekar Mayya v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrashekar Mayya v. the 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

Sri Rasheed Saheb, Vs State by Mangaluru Women Police Station

Sri.Simon Devaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Hussainabba @ Hussain @ Suhel @ Ustad Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Shyam Sundar K Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S B Sampath Krishna Vs State of Karnataka

Vibhishan Burman Vs State of Karnataka