- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26688 WP No. 23341 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI WRIT PETITION NO. 23341 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI PRATHAP S WADHWA S/O SHRI.SHIVKUMAR WADHWA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. CONVENTION HOTELS INDIA PVT LTD., NO.109, AEROLEX CENTER, 4TH FLOOR, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.AJESH KUMAR.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BALE HONNURU POLICE STATION, REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. SHRI.SHEIKH KHASIM AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, D/O SHEIKH DASTHAGIR INVESTIGATOR, STAR INDIA PVT LTD., #155, SECTOR 39, GURGAON, HARYANA-122 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26688 WP No. 23341 of 2019 V/O DTD: 17.06.2025 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS H/S) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE SHEET FILED IN CRIME NO.01/2015 DATED 06.01.2015 OF RESPONDENT BALE HONNUR POLICE STATION (VIDE ANNEXURE-A), WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NARASIMHARAJA PURA, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT IMPUTING THE PETITONER HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 66(C), 66(D) AND 84B OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT AND SECTION 379, 120B-(2), 417 AND 420 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.4 has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against him in CC.No.72/2018 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Narasimharajapura, Chikkamagaluru District, for the offences punishable and Section 66C, 66D and 84B of Information Technology Act, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26688 WP No. 23341 of 2019 2008 and Sections 379, 120-B (2), 417, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 2. In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that there is no connection between the defacto complainant and the complaint. In the complaint, name of petitioner is not forthcoming. Only in the charge sheet his name is included with malafide intention. While the allegations that the agreement was between the complainant company and accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 and 3 are employees of accused No.1, there is no connection whatsoever between the petitioner and the alleged crime. The complaint may be utmost considered as a consumer grievance and it is being given a colour of criminal case after lapse of five years. The allegations made in the complaint does not attract the provisions for which cases registered and charge sheet is filed, continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and pray to quash the same. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26688 WP No. 23341 of 2019 3. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following decisions; i) Mr.Rohit Jawa Vs. State of Karnataka and another (Rohit Jawa)1 ii) Sanjay Dutt and others Vs. The State of Haryana and another (Sunjay Dutt)2 4. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent No.2 and learned HCGP representing respondent No.1/State submit that accused No.1 is running a cable service by name MPLEX Network Private Ltd, At Balehonnur, wherein accused No.2 is the Manager and accused No.3 is the cable operator. Initially, they were running the said cable service at Someshwara complex and shifted to Kalmakki Mallegowda complex. They had agreement with Star India Ltd on 31.03.2014. From April- 2014, they did not renew the agreement and as such the distribution of channels of Star India was stopped. 1 Crl.P.No.8536/2023 dated 03.07.2025 2 Crl.A.No.11/2025, dated 02.01.2025 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26688 WP No. 23341 of 2019 4.1 However, on discreet investigation conducted by the complainant, it came to light that accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed theft by receiving the channels from Videocon D2H network and distributing the same through their cable service. Accused No.4 is the owner of MPLEX Network Private Ltd. After conducting detailed investigation, the charge sheet is filed. However, he would further submit that since MPLEX Network Private Ltd is a company, without arraigning the same as accused, petitioner cannot be proceeded against and he seeks permission to include the company and file additional charge sheet against the company and the present petitioner. 5. Heard arguments and perused the record. 6. The specific allegations against the accused persons including the petitioner are that, while petitioner is the owner of MPLEX network Private Ltd, engaged in distribution of different channels to the consumers at - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26688 WP No. 23341 of 2019 Balehonnur, accused No.1 is running the said cable network, accused No.2 is the Manager and accused No.3 is the operator. Though till 31.03.2014, they had license to supply the channels of Star India Private Ltd, they did not get it renewed with effect from 01.04.2014. Complainant who is a Private detective conducted discreet investigation and found that the accused persons are receiving the channels of Star India Ltd through Videocon D2H network and copy the same and distribute through their main transmitter. 7. Based on the complaint filed by the complainant, the concerned police have registered the case in Cr.No.1/2015 and after conducting detailed investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused person including the petitioner. Though in the complaint name of petitioner was not included, during the investigation, his name is included as he is the owner of MPLEX Network Private Ltd. However, he is the Managing Director of the said company. Learned HCGP fairly submitted that since MPLEX - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26688 WP No. 23341 of 2019 Network Private Ltd is a company, without arraigning the same as accused, petitioner cannot be proceeded against. However, he seeks permission to include the company and file additional charge sheet against the company and the present petitioner. In the light of the same, the present petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly, the following: ORDER i) Petition filed by accused No.4 under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed. ii) The criminal proceedings initiated against petitioner/accused No.4 in CC.No.72/2018 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Narasimharajapura, Chikkamagaluru District (arising out of Cr.No.1/2015 of Balehonnur PS), for the offences - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26688 WP No. 23341 of 2019 punishable and Section 66C, 66D and 84B of Information Technology Act, 2008 and Sections 379, 120-B (2), 417, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC is hereby quashed. iii) However, the investigating officer is at liberty to arraign the company and file additional charge sheet as against the company and the petitioner. iv) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court through email. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19