- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6802 CRL.P No. 15994 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15994 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. M/S.SMART NETA HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: NO. 3121, 1ST FLOOR, 19TH CROSS, K.R. ROAD, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU – 560 070. 2. SMT. SHILPA PAWAR, W/O. RAGHU RAJ AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 3. SRI RAGHU RAJ AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, BOTH PETITIONERS NO.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT. NO.3121, 1ST FLOOR, 19TH CROSS, K.R. ROAD, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU – 560 070. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. N. SHARADHA.,ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. APOORVA URS W/O. ABHIJEET. S., Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6802 CRL.P No. 15994 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT. NO. 4001, 19TH CROSS, K.R. ROAD, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 070. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI AJAY KADKOL T., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO I)SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15-10- 2025 PASSED BY THE LXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-68 IN CRL.R.P. 482/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; II) CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 15-4- 2023 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU IN PCR.2151/2023, VIDE ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order of the Revisional Court dated 15-10-2025 passed in Crl.R.P.No.482 of 2023, by which the matter is remitted back to the hands of the learned Magistrate to appropriately hear the complainant and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6802 CRL.P No. 15994 of 2025 2. Heard Smt N Sharadha, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri Ajay Kadkol T, learned counsel appearing for respondent. 3. The petitioners are accused Nos.1, 2 and 3, the respondent is the complainant. A private complaint comes to be registered in PCR 2151 of 2023 alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B of the IPC and Sections 66E, 71 and 72 of the Information Technology Act. The concerned Court, by its order dated 15-04-2023, rejects the complaint itself, the rejection of which is challenged before the Court of Sessions in Criminal Revision Petition 482 of 2023. The Sessions Court, allows the revision petition, sets aside the order and remits the matter back to the hands of the learned Magistrate to re-appreciate all the contentions taken by the complainant in her complaint by hearing the complainant. This is what is challenged by the petitioners/accused in the case at hand on the score that the petitioners have a right to challenge it, as closure of the complaint would lead to closure of the allegations against the petitioners. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6802 CRL.P No. 15994 of 2025 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that all the reasons are rendered by the concerned Court to close the proceedings. There was no warrant for the Revisional Court to allow the petition and send the matter back to the hands of the learned Magistrate. 5. Per-contra, the learned counsel representing the respondent submits that the concerned Court could not have dismissed the complaint in a perfunctory manner and therefore, would submit that the Court of Sessions was well within its jurisdiction to remit the matter back to the hands of the concerned Court to hear the complainant and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The complainant registers a private complaint invoking several offences, the relevant portion of the complaint reads as follows: “…. …. …. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6802 CRL.P No. 15994 of 2025 9. However, the complainant has filed this complaint against the accused persons for not only playing fraud and cheating her in refusing to pay the amounts which they are liable to pay but also, the enquiries which the complainant has been able to make -- - have revealed that the second and third accused in the company of certain persons ---are not known to her at this point of time have engaged in illegally accessing voter data–-which information is preserved and maintained as confidential for protection of privacy-- by the State Election Commission. The data and information which the second and this --accused along with their associates have been able to access are being manipulated, altered and sold for several crores of rupees to aspirational and prospective candidate contesting in the upcoming State legislative elections - 2023, which will ultimately have a deep and uncompensatable effect and ramifications not only in the conduct of the election process, but also in the counting of polls and the results that would arise therefrom in the upcoming State Legislative Elections - 2023. 10. Being aggrieved by the illegal acts of the accused persons in the manner stated above, the complainant herein filed a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Banashankari Police Station, Bangalore on 21-02-2023. Despite the complaint filed by the complainant having revealed prima facie cognizable offences, the Inspector of Police-Banashankari Police Station did not take any action let alone initiate any enquiry. Several requests made by the complainant to even issue an acknowledgement of receipt of the complaint being filed were not acceded to. Left with no other option, the complainant has sent the copy of the complaint by way of postal service as evidence of its filing.” (sic) The complaint clearly indicates offences that would prima facie be cognizable. The Court could not have closed the proceedings on the score that the parties were agitating a civil dispute - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6802 CRL.P No. 15994 of 2025 before the concerned Court. The investigation into such offences was the least that the Court could consider. The Revisional Court has not even directed investigation to be conducted, as obtaining under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. It has only directed to rehear the complainant, by setting aside the order of dismissal of the complaint. This would not give any right to the petitioners to come before this Court and challenge the order of the Revisional Court, which only remits the matter back to the hands of the learned Magistrate, for which no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners, as there is no direction to investigate into the matter. Finding no merit in the petition, petition stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45