Karnataka High Court
Akshay S/O Basappa Kambale vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2552
CRL.P No. 104220 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104220 OF 2025
(482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
AKSHAY S/O BASAPPA KAMBALE
AGE. 19 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. SAPTASAGAR VILLAGE,
TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-591304
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.S. KORISHETTAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY DHARWAD SUB-URBAN P.S., DHARWAD,
R/BY SPP., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH-580011.
CHANDRASHEKAR 2. GURUBASAVARAJ S/O. SHANTAYYA MAHANTINAMATH
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI AGE. 21 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. TOWDUR, TQ. HARAPANAHALLI,
DIST. VIJAYANAGAR- 583125.
...RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed by (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
NOTICE SERVED TO R2)
Date: 2026.02.21
11:44:52 +0530
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS 2023,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SUB-URBAN P.S.
DHARWAD CRIME NO.181/2024 PUNISHABLE U/S 78, 308(2), 351(2)
AND 3(5) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA (BNS) AND SECTION 67
OF IT ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND
PRL.JMFC, DHARWAD, AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2552
CRL.P No. 104220 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
1. Heard Sri.K.S.Korishettar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Smt.Kirtilata R. Patil, leaned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State.
2. Though respondent No.2 has been served with notice, he remains absent and unrepresented.
3. The petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking the following relief:
In view of the above grounds, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:
(i) Quash the entire proceedings in Sub-Urban P.S.Dharwad Crime No.181/2024 punishable U/s 78, 308(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 67 of I.T. Act pending on -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2552 CRL.P No. 104220 of 2025 HC-KAR the file of the Principal Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, Dharwad, against the petitioner/accused No.2.
(ii) Any other relief that deems fit may kindly be passed, in the interest of justice and equity.
4. The gist of the complaint averments are as under:
4.1 Sub-Urban Police Station, Dharwad, registered a case in Crime No.181 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 78, 308(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 against the petitioner and yet another accused.
4.2 Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before Sub-
Urban Police Station, Dharwad, stated that on 21.08.2024 he had uploaded a photograph of himself with his friends. It is alleged that, without his consent, the said photograph uploaded by the complainant was morphed in an obscene manner and posted on certain public instagram accounts, namely "haveRi_tRoll_officeial_ak","troll_Ravava_official_21" and "haveritroller". Obscene captions were added and the photograph was tagged with improper and offensive words, -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2552 CRL.P No. 104220 of 2025 HC-KAR which were subsequently obliterated. Till the lodging of the complaint, the said post was viewed by 7,678 people. The complainant requested the Instagram troll page to remove the said post.
4.3 It is further alleged that, in order to remove the same, they demanded ₹10,000/-. If the said demand was not met, they threatened to further upload the same photograph on a naked form. The complainant negotiated the amount by offering ₹3,000/-, but they demanded ₹8,000/-. Again, there was a threat that the photograph would be further uploaded with obscene material.
4.4 There was also an audio call demanding money and messages sent from the Instagram account. A QR code was also sent to his mobile phone, instructing him to scan it and pay ₹8,000/-. When the amount was not paid, there was a further demand for ₹15,000/-. Based on the friend's advice, he reported the same to the Police.
5. Jurisdictional Police, after registering the case, are investigating the matter. The present petitioner is shown as accused No.2 in the incident.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2552 CRL.P No. 104220 of 2025 HC-KAR
6. Sri.K.S.Korishettar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, would contend that the petitioner has no nexus whatsoever with the alleged incident and that he has been falsely implicated in the matter.
7. He would further contend that he is not the one who shared the obscene photograph on the Instagram account and that he has nothing to do with the alleged incident and therefore, sought for quashing of the complaint.
8. Per contra, Smt.Kirtilata R.Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State, would contend that the grounds urged in the petition are hardly sufficient to quash the pending FIR.
9. She would further contend that if no material is found out against the petitioner in respect of the incident, an appropriate report would be filed by the Investigation Agency and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.
10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the posts which appeared on the Instagram -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2552 CRL.P No. 104220 of 2025 HC-KAR accounts as referred to supra have already been collected by the Investigating Agency through screenshots.
12. Further, the demand for money for removal of the post is prima facie established by collecting the necessary information from the complainant's mobile telephone. The QR code sent to the complainant's mobile telephone and the audio call made are prima facie proof of the incident that has taken place.
13. Whether at all the present petitioner, being the second accused, had any role in such demand or not cannot be decided by this Court at this stage, as it would squarely fall within the sphere of investigation.
14. Since the investigation is in progress, if the petitioner is found to have no nexus with the incident, the Investigation Officer would necessarily file an appropriate report.
15. If any adverse report is filed against the petitioner, it is always open for the petitioner to approach this Court seeking appropriate relief.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2552 CRL.P No. 104220 of 2025 HC-KAR
16. With that liberty reserved for the petitioner, the following order is passed.
ORDER The petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RHR/-CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 81