[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
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
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2552
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,
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2552
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.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2552
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
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2552
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.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2552
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
