- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6888 WP No. 574 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 574 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: C.B.MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O LATE BYRAPPA, R/AT RAMESHWARA NAGAR, BHYRAWESHWARA NILAYA, CHIKAMAGALUR – 577 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SACHIN B. S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BALEHONNUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. SHEIK KHASIM, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O SHEIK DASTHAGIR, R/O FLAT NO.155, SECTOR-39, GURUGAON, HARAYANA – 122 022. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1) Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6888 WP No. 574 of 2026 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.72/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NARASIMHARAJAPURA, CHIKKAMAGALURU REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 37, 63, 65, 69 OF COPY RIGHTS ACT, 1957 AND SECTIONS 379, 120B(2), 417, 420 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AND ALSO UNDER 66-C, 66D, 84B OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2008 AS PER ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel Sri. Sachin B.S., appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Vinay Mahadevaiah, the learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6888 WP No. 574 of 2026 2. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following prayers: "a. Quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.72/2018 pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Narasimharajapura, Chikkamagaluru registered for the offence punishable under Section 37, 63, 65, 69 of Copy rights Act, 1957 and Section 379, 120B(2), 417, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under 66-C, 66D, 84B of Information Technology Act, 2008 as per ANNEXURE-A in so far as the Petitioner is concerned; a. To Grant any such other relief as the Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant, in the ends of equity and justice " 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.23341/2019 disposed on 17.07.2025, wherein it has held as follows: "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, 2008 and Sections 379, 120-B (2), 417, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6888 WP No. 574 of 2026 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. 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) [Crl.P.No.8536/2023 dated 03.07.2025] ii) Sanjay Dutt and others Vs. The State of Haryana and another (Sunjay Dutt) [Crl.A.No.11/2025, dated 02.01.2025] 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 April2014, they did not renew the agreement and as such the distribution of channels of Star India was stopped. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6888 WP No. 574 of 2026 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 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6888 WP No. 574 of 2026 MPLEX 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 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. " 4. In the light of the order passed by this Court (supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6888 WP No. 574 of 2026 ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.72/2018 pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Narasimharajapura, Chikkamagaluru, stand quashed, qua the petitioner. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72 CT:SS