- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6159 CRL.P No. 1524 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1524 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. ASHISH JAIN S/O. DINESH JAIN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.1051, 5TH MAIN, D BLOCK, NEAR NAVARANGA, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU – 560 010. 2. SOHANLAL PREMCHAND S/O. PREMCHAND AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.51, PUSHPAVATIKA VANIVILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU – 560 010. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI C.V.NAGESH, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI SRIVASTHAVA H.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ULSOOR GATE POICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6159 CRL.P No. 1524 of 2026 BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ECONOMIC OFFENCES AND CYBERCRIME WING YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU – 560 022. 3. SUNIL SHARMA AGED MAJOR NO.230/A, TANKA BAND ROAD,, SUBRAMANYANAGAR, BENGALURU CITY KARNATAKA – 560 021. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1 AND R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CR.NO.253/2026 PENDING IN THE FILE OF 3RD ACMM COURT, BENGALURU CITY BANGALORE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RESTRAIN ITS MISUSE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND SET ASIDE ALL PROCEEDINGS/ ACTIONS EMANATING FROM IT IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF PETITIONER BY PASSING APPROPRIATE ORDER OR SUITABLE DIRECTION TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6159 CRL.P No. 1524 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court calling in question a notice issued by the respondent police in Crime No. 253 of 2026, on the score that it is not stated as to under what provision of law the said notice is issued to summon the petitioners. 2. Heard the learned senior Counsel Sri C. V. Nagesh appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 3. Owing to the submissions made by the learned senior Counsel, this Court had interdicted all further proceedings against the petitioners by an order dated 31-01-2026, which reads as follows: “Heard the learned Senior counsel, Sri. C.V. Nagesh, appearing for the petitioners. Learned Addl. SPP waives notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Issue emergent notice to respondent No.3. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6159 CRL.P No. 1524 of 2026 The petitioners are not accused. They are not proposed to be brought as accused also in the crime so registered in Crime No.253/2025, but are repeatedly being called by the police to appear before them under what authority of law is not divulged. Owing to constant harassment, it transpires that a e-mail is communicated to the jurisdictional police before whom Crime No.253/2025 had been registered that the harassment is not stopping. The harassment from that police station appears to have been transferred to another police station which admittedly is not investigated into Crime No.253/2025. Learned Addl. SPP submits that the case has been transferred to another police station, which has now issued a notice. The notice is produced. The notice does not indicate under what provision of law, is issued to the petitioners to summon. If they are accused, it is open to the police to issue a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, if they are wanting as witnesses under Section 179 of the BNSS. Neither of the two has happened. It is this action of the police, which is now become rampant that has generated lot of litigation before this Court. The notice now is termed as Police Notice - 1 under what provision again as observed hereinabove is not indicated. Therefore, the person who has issued notice to these petitioners today i.e., 31.01.2026 shall be present before the Court at 2:30 P.M. on 03.02.2026. All further action pursuant to the notice shall remain stayed, till the next date of hearing. Office objections to be complied with by evening of 02.02.2026, failing which, interim order would get vacated. Hand delivery of the order is permitted.” The contention is, there is constant harassment to the petitioners not from one police station, but from different police - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6159 CRL.P No. 1524 of 2026 stations. Therefore, the police notice issued was said to be without authority of law. 4. The Police Sub Inspector of Malleswaram police station was directed to be present, who is present before the Court and would acknowledge that it was a mistake in issuance of a police notice without indicating the provision of law. 5. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor places the records of investigation and the necessity of recording the statement of the petitioners. He would submit that in the crime so registered, the other accused have divulged the role of these petitioners also, particularly of the 1st petitioner in the episode of crime and therefore, recording of the statement of the petitioners or the 1st petitioner in particular, is imperative, for the purpose of continuance of investigation in Crime No.253 of 2025. 6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would admit that the officer in charge of different police stations have called the petitioners, but would submit that it is only to decode the apps that were found in the mobile of the accused, since - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6159 CRL.P No. 1524 of 2026 the issue revolves round development of 4 apps to hoodwink the Income Tax Department. 7. In that light, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition, with a direction to the petitioners to cooperate with the investigation if needed and in the event, the petitioners are drawn as accused at a later point in time, they are reserved liberty to knock at the doors of this Court. In the garb of investigation, it is needless to observe, that the Investigating Officer would follow the due process of law and record the statements of the petitioners and not by taking coercive action against them. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1