Allowed¶55

V Venkat Sai Kiran v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2026CRL.P/16262/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: quashing of FIR and charge sheet; inherent powers; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Section 528 BNSS; Section 318(4) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; sale and resale of IPL tickets; no statutory prohibition or fraudulent element; parity with co-accused; hostile discrimination; abuse of process; Crime No.139/2025, Yeshwanthpura Police Station; C.C.No.23388/2025, 1st Addl. CJM Bengaluru; Crl.P.No.11578/2025 and Crl.P.No.11219/2025; Somarapu Vamshi vs. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC Online Kar 1436; accused No.4 V. Venkat Sai Kiran; NC 2026:KHC:1258; HC-KAR.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings pending in C.C.No.23388/2025 on the file of the 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, as against accused No.4 (the petitioner), are quashed. ¶55

V Venkat Sai Kiran Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The proceedings pending in C.C.No.23388/2025 on the file of the 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, as against accused No.4 (the petitioner), are quashed.

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings pending in C.C.No.23388/2025, arising out of Crime No.139/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the petitioner (accused No.4), should be quashed in exercise of the Court's inherent jurisdiction. +2 more

¶26

Court's answer

Exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court holds that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, and the proceedings against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS, 2023 deserve to be quashed to secure the ends of justice.

¶50

Ratio / Principle

Taking note of the settled legal position laid down by this Court in Somarapu Vamshi (supra), mere sale or resale of IPL tickets, in the absence of any statutory prohibition or fraudulent element, does not constitute an offence, much less an offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; this position is adopted and applied to the present case.

¶43

Key takeaways

The allegations against the present petitioner are indistinguishable from those levelled against accused Nos.3 and 5, whose proceedings arising out of the same crime number have already been quashed by Co-ordinate Benches; denial of similar relief to the petitioner would amount to hostile discrimination, defeat the principle of parity, and the proceedings against him are liable to be quashed.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under Ss.482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS allowed. The petitioner, arraigned as accused No.4 in Crime No.139/2025 of Yeshwanthpura Police Station (FIR dated 03.05.2025) for an offence punishable under Section 318(4) BNS, 2023 over his alleged involvement in the sale and resale of IPL tickets, had been charge-sheeted after completion of investigation; the resulting proceedings stood pending in C.C.No.23388/2025 before the 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Bengaluru. Relying on Somarapu Vamshi vs. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC Online Kar 1436, wherein this Court held that mere sale or resale of IPL tickets, absent any statutory prohibition or fraudulent element, constitutes no offence punishable under Section 318(4) BNS, and noting that the proceedings against identically placed accused Nos.3 and 5 in the same crime number had already been quashed in Crl.P.No.11578/2025 and Crl.P.No.11219/2025, the Court held that denying the petitioner like relief would amount to hostile discrimination defeating parity, and that continuance would be an abuse of the process of law. Proceedings qua accused No.4 quashed under Section 528 BNSS. (Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:1258 CRL.P No. 16262 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16262 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

V. VENKAT SAI KIRAN, SON OF R. VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 9, 5TH CROSS, BEHIND KAMAKYA THEATRE, KAMAKYA LAYOUT, BSK 3 STAGE, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE - 560 085.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAGHAVA P, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶15

BY YESHWANTHAPURA POLICE STATION,

¶16

BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 012.

¶17

SRI. DAYANAND M.J POLICE INSPECTOR SIT CCB BOTH REPRESENTED BY THE SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP)

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:1258 CRL.P No. 16262 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE FIR DATED 03.05.2025 IN CR.NO.139/2025 LODGED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE AUTHORITIES, YESHWANTHPURA POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE 1sT ADDL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, BENGALURU FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE P/US/ 318(4) BNS AGAINST THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE B).

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The captioned petition is filed seeking quashing of

¶26

the proceedings pending in C.C.No.23388/2025 arising out of Crime No.139/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶27

Facts leading to the case are as under:

¶28

The petitioner stands charge-sheeted for the offence

¶29

punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising out of Crime No.139/2025. The specific allegation against the present petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.4, is that he was allegedly involved

¶30

in the sale and resale of IPL tickets, which led to the registration of the aforesaid crime. Upon completion of

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:1258 CRL.P No. 16262 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

investigation, the Investigating Officer has laid the charge sheet for the said offence.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

¶36

reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, has specifically drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph No.20 of the petition and submits that the allegations levelled against the present petitioner are identical to those attributed to accused Nos.3 and 5 in the very same crime number. It is pointed out that the proceedings against the said co-accused have already been quashed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Crl.P.No.11578/2025 and Crl.P.No.11219/2025. Placing reliance on the said orders and the law laid down by this

¶37

Court in Somarapu Vamshi vs. State of Karnataka (2025 SCC Online Kar 1436) , learned counsel would contend that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of parity and that the continuation of proceedings against him would be wholly arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:1258 CRL.P No. 16262 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Per contra, learned Additional Government

¶42

Advocate, while not disputing either the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in respect of the coaccused or the legal position enunciated in the aforesaid judgment, would submit that since the investigation is complete and the charge sheet has already been filed, no indulgence is warranted at this stage and the petitioner may be relegated to face trial.

¶43

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the material placed on record, this Court takes note of the settled legal position laid down by this Court with regard to the alleged sale and resale of IPL tickets. In Somarapu Vamshi (supra), this Court has categorically held that mere sale or resale of IPL tickets, in the absence of any statutory prohibition or fraudulent element, does not constitute an offence, much less an offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1258 CRL.P No. 16262 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

This Court also cannot lose sight of the undisputed fact that the allegations against the present petitioner are indistinguishable from those levelled against accused Nos.3 and 5, whose proceedings arising out of the very same crime number have already been quashed by Coordinate Benches of this Court. Denial of similar relief to the present petitioner would amount to hostile discrimination and would defeat the principle of parity. In the light of the binding precedent and to ensure consistency in judicial approach, this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings against the present petitioner are also liable to be quashed.

¶47

Accordingly, this Court is inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. If such jurisdiction is not exercised, the petitioner would be compelled to undergo the rigours of a protracted criminal trial despite the fact that the proceedings against similarly placed co-accused have already been quashed and the very substratum of

¶48

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:1258 CRL.P No. 16262 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

the prosecution stands eroded. Continuation of the proceedings would, therefore, amount to an abuse of the process of law. Hence, in order to secure the ends of justice, the proceedings against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS, 2023,

¶51

deserve to be quashed.

¶52

Accordingly, this Court passes the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i. The criminal petition is allowed;

¶55

ii. The proceedings pending in C.C.No.23388/2025 on the file of 1^st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, as against accused no.4 are hereby quashed.

¶56

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶57

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the criminal proceedings pending in C.C.No.23388/2025, arising out of Crime No.139/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the petitioner (accused No.4), should be quashed in exercise of the Court's inherent jurisdiction.¶26
The court held
Exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court holds that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, and the proceedings against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS, 2023 deserve to be quashed to secure the ends of justice.ratio¶50
2.
Whether mere sale or resale of IPL tickets, in the absence of any statutory prohibition or fraudulent element, constitutes an offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.¶43
The court held
Taking note of the settled legal position laid down by this Court in Somarapu Vamshi (supra), mere sale or resale of IPL tickets, in the absence of any statutory prohibition or fraudulent element, does not constitute an offence, much less an offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; this position is adopted and applied to the present case.ratio¶43
3.
Whether denial to the petitioner of the relief already granted to identically placed co-accused Nos.3 and 5 (whose proceedings in the same crime were quashed) amounts to hostile discrimination such that the proceedings against him must also be quashed.¶46
The court held
The allegations against the present petitioner are indistinguishable from those levelled against accused Nos.3 and 5, whose proceedings arising out of the same crime number have already been quashed by Co-ordinate Benches; denial of similar relief to the petitioner would amount to hostile discrimination, defeat the principle of parity, and the proceedings against him are liable to be quashed.ratio¶46

V Venkat Sai Kiran v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Venkat Sai Kiran 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sangeet Theatre Vs Smt. Chandralatha

The Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs M/S Venkateshwara Distributors

I.S. Saraswathi Vs Smt. Basamma

Suresh Naik @ Suresha Vs the State of Karnataka

Palleti Prabhakar Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Ningamma Vs Manjunatha H D