Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 39721 (KAR)

PARMAR DINESHBHAI RAMJIBHAI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/8681/2026 · 2026-09-09

Anant Ramanath Hegde

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010411502026 NC: 2026:KHC:48864 CRL.P No. 8681 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8681 OF 2026 (482(Cr.PC)/ 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. PARMAR DINESHBHAI RAMJIBHAI SON OF RAMJI BHAI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS NO.402, VADAVALU FALIYU VALANDAPURA VILLAGE VARSADA POST, ANAND DISTRICT GUJARAT-388180. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASIDDARAJ, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NORTH CEN POLICE BENGALURU THROUGH THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001. 2. LAKSHMI R G WIFE OF MUNIRAJA S Y AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO-4, 9TH A CROSS DEFENCE COLONY, BAGALUGUNTE BENGALURU-560073. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAG HARISH, HCGP FOR R1 R2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) - - - THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.273/2025 REGISTERED BY Digitally Signed by ANANT RAMNATH HEGDE Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010411502026 NC: 2026:KHC:48864 CRL.P No. 8681 of 2026 NORTH CEN CRIME P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 66(C) AND 66(D) OF I.T ACT, 2000, U/S 318(4) OF BNS, 2023, PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE 45th ACJM AT BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1. 2. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.273/2025 registered before the North CEN Crime Police for the offences punishable under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 318(4) of the Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending on the file of the XLV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any crime and the petitioner is innocent. It is urged that the amount allegedly transferred by the complainant to the petitioner's account, i.e. Rs.4,00,000/-, was not at the instruction of the petitioner but it Digitally Signed by ANANT RAMNATH HEGDE - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010411502026 NC: 2026:KHC:48864 CRL.P No. 8681 of 2026 was as per the instruction of the accused No.1 and the petitioner was not aware of this transaction. 4. It is his further submission that even before the petitioner could report this matter to the concerned police or the Bank official, the account was freezed. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that there is no justification in filing the FIR against the petitioner. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader would oppose the petition on the ground that the matter requires investigation as the petitioner has received approximately Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant. 6. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. At this stage, it appears that the petitioner has received approximately Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant. Based on the instruction given by the complainant, the petitioner's account is freezed. Digitally Signed by ANANT RAMNATH HEGDE - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010411502026 NC: 2026:KHC:48864 CRL.P No. 8681 of 2026 7. Though the petitioner would contend that the said amount is transferred without his knowledge and consent and the petitioner has not given any instruction to the complainant to credit the amount, this aspect of the matter has to be looked into by the police. The police shall investigate the matter and file an appropriate report. 8. Merely because the petition is not entertained, it does not mean that the Court has reflected anything on the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner. All contentions are kept open. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 9. In view of the dismissal of the petition, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration. (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25 Digitally Signed by ANANT RAMNATH HEGDE