- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39183 WP No. 28344 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 28344 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: RAMPRASAD SHASTRY S/O MR.S.R.S SHASTRY , AGE ABOUT 67 YEARS, HAVING ITS OFFICE ADDRESS AT 19, 3RD FLOOR, 1ST CROSS ROAD, KHB COLONY, 5TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560095 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AIYAPPA K G.,ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HULIMAVU POLICE STATION, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP A/W SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 528 OF THE BNSS, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39183 WP No. 28344 of 2025 2023 PRAYING TO GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION OF THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DTD 6.9.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE FOUND AT ANNX-R., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed questioning the impugned notice dated 06.09.2025 issued by the respondent as per Annexure-R. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Additional Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 3. The respondent police have registered an FIR under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Mr. J.C. Achutha, who has alleged that his son is missing. In connection with the said crime, the present petitioner, who is the founder and director of a company known as DriveU Mobility Solutions Private Limited, is before this Court being aggrieved by the issuance of a police notice, produced at Annexure–R, which is the subject matter of the captioned petition. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39183 WP No. 28344 of 2025 4. The contention urged by the petitioner before this Court is that DriveU Mobility Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is a platform- based service provider, whose services are accessible to any member of the public by downloading the DriveU mobile application on an electronic device. It is submitted that a person intending to be registered as a driver on the said application is mandatorily required to upload requisite documents, including a valid driver’s licence (DL), Aadhaar card, bank account details, and photographs. These documents, according to the petitioner, undergo due verification through the company’s agents and are further cross-checked through official portals. The petitioner asserts that the company follows a systematic, transparent, and rigorous process of background checks and verifications regarding the conduct and antecedents of drivers before onboarding them onto the DriveU platform. 5. The petitioner, being the director and founder of the company, expresses an apprehension that coercive action may be initiated by the investigating officer in connection with the impugned notice. Particular reference is made to the language employed by the police authorities in the said notice, which, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39183 WP No. 28344 of 2025 according to the petitioner, conveys a threat of coercive steps, thereby causing undue prejudice. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that this Court be pleased to quash the impugned notice at Annexure–R. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, on instructions and referring to the records, submits that the initial notice was, in fact, issued only to the manager of the company and not to the present petitioner/director. However, since the said notice was replied to by the petitioner in his capacity as director, the subsequent communications, including the impugned notice, came to be addressed to him directly. The Additional SPP further submits that the impugned notice merely requires the petitioner to furnish details relating to the prime accused, who is alleged to have utilized the DriveU platform while committing serious offences. The learned Additional SPP emphasizes that no coercive steps have been contemplated or initiated against the petitioner, but the investigating officer is duty-bound to collect vital information to effectively proceed with the investigation. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39183 WP No. 28344 of 2025 The impugned notice was thus issued only to facilitate collection of such crucial information. 7. Having heard the submissions of both parties and upon careful consideration of the material placed on record, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be served by clarifying the scope and intent of the impugned notice. It is made clear that the investigating officer is entitled to seek necessary information from the company, which is in its exclusive custody, so as to aid the ongoing investigation. At the same time, it is equally important to ensure that the petitioner, being the director of the company, is not subjected to any unnecessary harassment under the guise of investigation. 8. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner, in his capacity as director, may either personally furnish the details sought or may depute an authorized representative, such as the company manager, to fully cooperate with the investigating officer. The investigating officer, in turn, shall confine his requisitions strictly to the information necessary for the purposes of the investigation and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39183 WP No. 28344 of 2025 shall refrain from adopting any coercive methods against either the petitioner or the person deputed by him. 9. In light of the above discussion, this Court passes the following: ORDER i. The writ petition stands disposed of, reserving liberty to the investigating officer to collect all requisite information from the petitioner-company through an authorized representative deputed by the petitioner, such as the manager, or from the petitioner himself, should he voluntarily choose to assist. ii. It is open for the petitioner/director to personally provide the necessary details if he so desires. iii. In the event the petitioner deputes a manager or any other competent company official, the investigating officer shall confine himself to securing only such information as is reasonably required to progress the investigation. iv. It is further made clear that the investigating officer shall not resort to coercive steps against the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39183 WP No. 28344 of 2025 petitioner or his representative while seeking such information. v. The petitioner-company shall ensure that all vital and relevant information in its custody, pertaining to the prime accused and his use of the DriveU platform, is furnished without delay, so as to enable the investigating officer to conclude the investigation expeditiously. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26