- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44108 CRL.P No. 14298 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14298 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. NIRDHALA VIJAYA LAKSHMI MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. MORGANVIJ IMMIGRATION SERVICES PVT. LTD., D/O NIRDHALA PRAKASH RAO, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT: NO.17, SLV LAYOUT, NAGANATHAPURA, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE-560 100. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PAVAN N REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. LEELARAJU M.N., ADVOCATE (P/H)) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BANASAWADI POLICE STATION, BANASAWADI SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE CITY. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. MR. RICHARD ALEXANDER S/O LATE AROKIA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44108 CRL.P No. 14298 of 2025 R/AT 63, 2ND CROSS, GROUND FLOOR, GRAPE GARDEN, KULL, KAMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA-560 084. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1 (P/H)) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.316/2025 DATED 18.05.2025, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 66(C), 66(D) OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000, REGISTERED AT BANASAWADI POLICE STATION, BANASAWADI SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE CITY, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 11TH ADDL. CMM COURT, MAYOHALL, BANGALORE CITY, INSOFAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petitioner is seeking to quash the FIR and complaint in Crime No.316/2025 registered at Banaswadi Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Section 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 2. The aforementioned crime is registered on a complaint lodged by respondent No.2, wherein he has - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44108 CRL.P No. 14298 of 2025 alleged that on 10.04.2024, he saw an advertisement about ‘Morganvij Immigration Services Private Limited’ on Instagram. On the same day, an unknown person introduced herself as Nirdhala Vijayalakshmi and told him that there was a job opportunity abroad and that he would be provided a job and give work visa to the complainant’s son. It is alleged, with that assurance, complainant was induced to deposit a total sum of Rs.4,11,800/- with Morganvij Immigration Services Private Limited, but subsequently he was cheated. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that even if the entire complaint and FIR allegations are taken at its face value, they do not disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged under Section 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. He contended that the allegations are in the nature of a civil dispute, if at all, arising out of alleged monetary transactions. He further contended that the complaint is vague and do not disclose any specific date, time or place - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44108 CRL.P No. 14298 of 2025 of alleged act of cheating and the Police have acted mechanically in registering the FIR, without conducting a preliminary enquiry. He therefore, contended that the initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner amounts to harassment and it is an abuse of process of law. 4. It is seen that Police have issued a notice dated 22.06.2025 to the beneficiary M/s Morganvij Immigration Service, under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023, to appear before the Police with the relevant documents for the purpose of investigation. Petitioner is said to be the Managing Director of the said company. It is too premature at this stage to opine that the ingredients of the offences are not made out. The police have registered a case based on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 disclosing a cognizable offence. In the course of investigation the police have issued the notice, which cannot be found fault with. The statutory duty of the Police to investigate into the allegations cannot be - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44108 CRL.P No. 14298 of 2025 curtailed. Petitioner can appear before the Police and place all documents in support of his contentions. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that pursuant to the notice, petitioner has appeared before the Police and though no materials are found against the petitioner, they are calling the petitioners unnecessarily in the guise of investigation. 6. Police shall not harass the petitioner in the guise of investigation. If the final report is not filed within 30 days from today, petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh petition challenging the proceeding. Petition is disposed of. I.A.No.1/2025 is disposed of. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44