- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13640 WP No. 35628 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 35628 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: S JOHNSON, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.625/15TH MAIN ROAD, AXIS BANK, RM NAGAR, BENGALURU CITY – 560016. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHRIRAMA ADIGA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, EAST CEN CRIME, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 560001. 2. ERAPPA PUJARI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O. NOT KNOWN POLICE OFFICER, EAST CEN PS, BENGALURU – 560765. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 A. DIRECTING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 25/07/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 67 AND 67 (B) OF THE INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XLV ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE. VIDE ANNEXURE-A. Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13640 WP No. 35628 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner accused who is facing trial for the offence punishable under Sections 67 and 67(B) of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 is before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner/accused had uploaded a video in his Facebook account, in which a woman is having sexual intercourse with the minor boy, and the same was circulated in the social media. 3. The learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) for the respondent-State submitted that the allegations made in the First Information Report (‘FIR’) and the materials produced along with the chargesheet disclose the commission of offences alleged against the petitioner. It is further contended that the veracity and credibility of these allegations can only be assessed during the course of the trial. Therefore, such matters cannot be adjudicated or scrutinized in the present petition. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13640 WP No. 35628 of 2024 4. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both parties have been carefully and duly considered by this Court. 5. Upon a thorough perusal of the chargesheet materials, it is evident that, apart from the self-serving statement of the complainant, there is no data or other material evidence retrieved from the petitioner’s mobile phone to support the allegations made against him. In the absence of any substantial or corroborative evidence to substantiate the charges against the petitioner, allowing the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C. No. 14735/2024, pending on the file of the XLV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE PNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 157