The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against two accused for lack of any prima facie evidence of dishonest intent, impersonation, or unauthorized access under the Information Technology Act and Section 420 of the IPC. The judgment underscores that speculative allegations without concrete material cannot sustain prosecution for cyber and fraud offences.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arises from allegations that computer centers in Manvi, Raichur district, submitted unauthorized applications under the Gruha Lakshmi Yojana, a state welfare scheme for housing assistance. The complainant, Chandrakanta, L.D. Tahsildar, Manvi, alleged that applicants were impersonated and official login credentials were misused to file fraudulent applications. Based on this complaint, Crime No. 0182/2023 was registered by Manvi Police Station on 24.07.2023 against five accused, including the petitioners herein.
Key Facts
- The petitioners, Sadique Anjum (Accused No. 3) and Rijwan Rabbani (Accused No. 5), are computer operators running centers in Manvi.
- The complaint dated 24.07.2023 made generalized allegations against "computer centers" without specifying any act, conduct, or involvement attributable to the petitioners.
- No application forms allegedly filed under the Gruha Lakshmi Yojana were seized or produced as evidence.
- No beneficiary whose application was allegedly submitted fraudulently was examined by the Investigating Officer.
- The charge sheet does not allege that the petitioners accessed, used, or misappropriated any official Grama One login credentials.
- There is no assertion that the petitioners impersonated any person, forged electronic signatures, or used passwords unlawfully.
- The charge sheet contains garbled Kannada text in Column No. 17, which appears to be corrupted or machine-translated output, rendering it unintelligible and legally insufficient.
- The Investigating Officer failed to collect any digital evidence, device logs, IP traces, or authentication records linking the petitioners to the alleged offences.
Procedural History
- 24.07.2023: Crime No. 0182/2023 registered by Manvi Police Station based on complaint by L.D. Tahsildar.
- After investigation: Charge sheet filed in C.C. No. 332/2024 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Manvi, naming five accused including the petitioners.
- 15.03.2026: Criminal Petition No. 200358/2026 filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (successor to Section 482 CrPC) seeking quashing of proceedings against petitioners.
- 26.03.2026: Hearing before the Hon’ble Mr. Justice G Basavaraja, Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi Bench.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners
- The petitioners have no role in the alleged fraud.
- The prosecution has not alleged any specific act of impersonation, misuse of credentials, or dishonest inducement by them.
- The charge sheet lacks any material to establish the essential ingredients of Sections 66(C) (identity theft) and 66(D) (cheating by impersonation) of the IT Act, or Section 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the IPC.
- The proceedings are based on vague, omnibus allegations and constitute an abuse of process.
For the Respondent-State
- The State, through the High Court Government Pleader, opposed the petition but did not produce any additional evidence or rebuttal beyond the charge sheet.
- No affidavit or supplementary material was filed to substantiate the allegations against the petitioners.
- The State relied solely on the uncorroborated and defective charge sheet.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of all proceedings against them in C.C. No. 332/2024 relating to offences under Sections 66(C), 66(D) of the IT Act and Section 420 of the IPC.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2008 and Section 420 of the IPC can be invoked against individuals in the absence of any specific allegation or material evidence showing dishonest intent, impersonation, or unauthorized access to electronic records.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners’ counsel relied on the principle that criminal proceedings cannot be sustained on vague, generalized, or speculative allegations. They cited State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to argue that when the complaint does not disclose any cognizable offence or lacks prima facie evidence, the High Court must intervene under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS to prevent abuse of process. They emphasized that Section 66(C) requires proof of dishonestly obtaining another person’s electronic signature, password, or unique identification, and Section 66(D) requires impersonation with intent to cheat - none of which were alleged against the petitioners. Further, for Section 420, there must be a dishonest inducement leading to delivery of property - no such inducement or loss was established.
For the Respondent
The State did not present any substantive counter-arguments beyond the charge sheet. No evidence was tendered to show that the petitioners had access to official credentials, that any beneficiary was impersonated, or that any application was filed using their systems with fraudulent intent. The State’s position amounted to a mere assertion without evidentiary support.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous review of the complaint and charge sheet. It noted that the charge sheet’s Column No. 17 contained a string of corrupted Unicode characters, rendering it legally meaningless. The Investigating Officer had not seized any application forms, examined any complainant or beneficiary, or collected any digital evidence - such as login logs, IP addresses, or device fingerprints - to link the petitioners to the alleged offences.
"Absolutely there are no prima facie materials to proceed against the petitioners for the alleged commission of offences."
The Court held that mere suspicion or association with a computer center does not equate to criminal liability under the IT Act or IPC. The prosecution failed to establish the mens rea required for Section 420 - namely, dishonest intention to deceive and induce delivery of property. Similarly, for Sections 66(C) and 66(D), the absence of any allegation regarding unauthorized access, impersonation, or misuse of electronic signatures rendered the charges legally unsustainable.
The Court emphasized that criminal law cannot be used as a tool to investigate administrative irregularities. Even if procedural lapses occurred in the submission of applications under the Gruha Lakshmi Yojana, those fall within the domain of administrative oversight, not criminal prosecution.
The continuation of proceedings without any prima facie evidence was held to be a clear case of abuse of the process of law, warranting intervention under Section 528 BNSS.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners, Accused Nos. 3 and 5, in C.C. No. 332/2024 arising out of Crime No. 0182/2023, for offences under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2008 and Section 420 of the IPC, are hereby quashed. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court at Manvi.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Criminal Proceedings Require Concrete Evidence, Not Speculation
- Practitioners must insist on the presence of specific, material allegations before agreeing to defend or oppose charges under cybercrime statutes.
- Vague complaints alleging "computer centers" engaged in fraud without naming acts or linking individuals to them are legally insufficient.
- Courts will quash proceedings where no digital evidence, beneficiary statements, or credential misuse is established.
IT Act Sections 66(C)/(D) Demand Proof of Identity Theft or Impersonation
- Section 66(C): Requires proof that the accused obtained another person’s password, electronic signature, or unique identification dishonestly. Mere access to a computer is not enough.
- Section 66(D): Requires proof of impersonation with intent to cheat. No such allegation was made against the petitioners.
- Prosecutors must now produce digital footprints - login records, timestamps, device IDs - to sustain charges under these sections.
Abuse of Process Doctrine Is a Powerful Shield Against Frivolous Prosecutions
- This judgment reinforces State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal as a living precedent for quashing baseless criminal cases.
- Lawyers representing accused in cybercrime cases should immediately move for quashing if the charge sheet lacks: (a) specific acts, (b) victim identification, (c) digital evidence, or (d) mens rea.
- Administrative errors in welfare schemes should be addressed through departmental inquiries, not criminal trials.
