[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Winzo Games Private Limited vs State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 23.01.2026
Pronounced on : 21.02.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10707 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
SUITE NO.106, FIRST FLOOR,
COPIA CORPORATE SUITES,
BUILDING NO. 9,
DDA DISTRICT CENTRE JASOLA,
NEW DELHI - 110 025.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE,
MS. SAUMYA SINGH RATHORE,
DIRECTOR,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
D/O. MR. ARUN PRATHAP SINGH,
AT:SUITE NO. 106, FIRST FLOOR,
COPIA CORPORATE SUITES,
BUILDING NO. 9,
DDA DISTRICT CENTRE JASOLA,
NEW DELHI - 110 025.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SAJAN POOVAYYA, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI AMITH NAYAK, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE OF CENTRAL CEN P.S.,
HALSURGATE SUB-DIVISION
BENGALURU CITY.
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . AASTHA SOOD
W/O. HIMANSHU TEWARY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 103, TULIP BLOCK,
PRESTIGE EXOTICA,
CUNNINGHAM CRESCENT ROAD,
VASANTH NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 051.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF
BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER AND QUASH THE FIR IN
CRIME NO.413/2024 DATED 04.07.2024 OF CENTRAL CEN P.S.,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED 45th ACMM NRUPATUNGA
ROAD, BENGALURU CITY REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
420 OF IPC 1860 AND UNDER SECTION 66C, 66D OF INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2008.
3
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.01.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question
registration of a crime in Crime No.413 of 2024 registered for
offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and Sections 66C
and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 ('the Act' for
short).
2. Heard Sri Sajan Poovayya, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned
Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: -
3.1. The petitioner-Company is a prominent digital
entertainment, gaming and technology Company established in the
year 2016. It operates a digital gaming platform called 'WinZo'
4
since February 2017, it is said to be a vernacular entertainment
platform providing diverse range of skill-based games including free
to play games. WinZo is said to have emerged as a leading gaming
platform in India. The complainant alleges that her PAN card
details were published online on a digital document platform called
www.scribd.com. The PAN details of the complainant are said to
have been stolen and misused by certain individuals on the
petitioner's platform. Therefore, the complainant seeks the help
from the jurisdictional police to ensure that PAN details of the
complainant are removed and also to remove the TDS entries in her
Form-26AS.
3.2. On 29-06-2024, the complaint comes to be registered
before the jurisdictional police. The complainant through an
electronic mail shared her details with the petitioner and further
details about the incident. The petitioner responds to the
complainant via e-mail and seeks to rectify after a formal complaint
with the Competent Authority. The complainant also shares a
screen shot of the cyber complaint filed by her against the misuse
of the PAN card. On 04-07-2024, the crime in Crime No.413 of
5
2024 comes to be registered based on the complaint of the
complainant. The petitioner then communicates an e-mail to the
competent authority informing about the incident as well as steps
taken to rectify as sought by the complainant. By then, the crime
had been registered against the petitioner and Scribd. Registration
of the crime drove the petitioner to this Court in the subject
petition. On 26-11-2024, this Court grants an interim order of stay
and when the matter was again listed on 07-01-2026 investigation
was permitted to be conducted and the matter is heard thereafter.
4. The learned senior counsel Sri Sajan Poovayya appearing
for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the issue is about
loss of ₹1200/- on the alleged misuse of PAN card of the
complainant. Beyond this there is no allegation against the
petitioner. PAN card is said to have been published on a public
platform called 'scribd'. The petitioner has not published on its
website, but certain perpetrators are said to have used it on the
petitioner's website. It is the petitioner who first brought to the
notice of the complainant with regard to the potential misuse of
PAN and rectified the problem. It cannot be said that the petitioner
6
can be held guilty or directed to face the rigmarole of investigation
for having done nothing by it. Therefore, the offences under Section
420 of the IPC or Sections 66C and 66D of the Act cannot be laid
against the petitioner.
5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
Sri B. N. Jagadeesha appearing for the 1st respondent would submit
that the petitioner has not cooperated with the investigation and it
is only now it has cooperated, which has revealed that misuse of
PAN card was by three persons who are in Uttar Pradesh.
Therefore, steps would be taken against those persons. If only the
petitioner cooperated, the things would have been different. He
would further contend that ₹1200/- is only tip of the iceberg. These
gaming apps have hoodwinked several innocent people. So, the
petitioner cannot be left off at the stage of investigation. He would
seek dismissal of the petition and continuance of investigation.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
7
7. The 2nd respondent who is the complainant, registers a
complaint before the Cyber Crime Police Station on 04-07-2024.
The complaint so registered reads as follows:
"To,
Police Inspector,
CEN Police Station,
Central Division,
Banglore City.
From: Aastha Sood
Name: Aastha Sood
HUSBAND NAME: Himanshu Tewary
AGE: 38 Years
GENDER: Female
ADDRESS: 103, Tulip Block, Prestige Exotica,
Cunningham Crescent Road, Vasanth nagar,
Bangalore- 560051.
MOBILE NO:9920553096
OCCUPATION: Director, Jupiter Money.
RELIGION: Hindu
CASTE: ARORA-KHATRI
EMAIL ID: [email protected]
Dear Sir, Madam,
SUBJECT: PAN THEFT AND MISUSE ON GAMING APPS
My PAN No. (XXXXXXXXXX) has been published online in
a data leak on www.scribd.com and has been misused by
criminals on two gaming apps, WINZO and REAL 11.
I found out about this through unknown TDS entries in
my form 26AS on June 29, 2024. The unauthorized use of
my PAN has happened from September 2023 onwards.
I have raised a complaint to the Income Tax Department
and the two gaming apps but the gaming apps (WINZO
and REAL 11) are not agreeing to help without police
8
intervention. Please help me to Investigate this and ask
for my pan to be removed
Regards
Aastha
Please take necessary action against the following:
1. www.scribd.com: For PAN Leak
2. WINZO APP: For misuse of PAN without Verification
3. REAL 11: For misuse of PAN without Verification"
It is the case of the complainant that her PAN card has been
published online in a data leak on scribd platform which has been
misused by criminals on two gaming apps WinZo and REAL-11. So,
one factor is clear that the petitioner has not got anything do with
the misuse. It is by criminals who published on scribd using the
petitioner's gaming platform. Prior to the registration of crime on
30-06-2024 the petitioner communicates to Aastha Sood, the
complainant. The mail trail is as follows:
"Aastha Sood <[email protected]>
Sun, Jun 30, 2024 at 9:47 AM
To: Saumya Singh Rathore <[email protected]>
Cc: Legal Team <[email protected]>, Paavan Nanda
<[email protected]> Shaswat Shekhar
<[email protected]>
Hi,
Please reach out to me on 9920553096.
9
On Sat, Jun 29, 2024, 11:06 PM Saumya Singh Rathore
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Aastha,
Came to my attention that your personal Identification
data has been compromised and misused on multiple
platforms including ours. It's a very serious concern for
us and would like to be in touch with you immediately to
work with you to report this breach and fraud conducted.
May I please request for your number where we can
reach you.
Regards,
Saumya"
.... .... ....
Re: Resolution of Issue with PAN Details
1 message
Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 10:34 PM
Aastha Sood <[email protected]>
To: Legal Team <[email protected]>
Can you please confirm if the screenshot of the cyber crime
complaint is what you needed and the process for removal of
these TDS transactions has been initiated from your end?
On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 7:41 PM Aastha Sood
<[email protected]> wrote:
Here you go, please confirm if this is what you need. This
complaint has been forwarded to Bangalore Central Cyber Crime
Police station, so they will contact you for assistance in their
investigation.
Secondly, please find a screenshot of your own email on the
non-requirement of KYC for deducting TDS. I don't wish to
engage on this matter further, but I hope this gives you clarity.
Please keep me posted on the status of the TDS transactions
removal.
10
Cyber Crime Incident
Complaint/Incident Details
Acknowledgement Number: 21006240030666
Category of complaint Online and Social Media Related
Crime
Sub-Category of complaint Fake/impersonating Profile
Approximate Date: 2023-09-30 HH:11 MM: N/A AM
is there any delay in reporting No
Supporting Evidence:
Description Text Information Supporting Evidence
Mobile App Winzo and Real11 Evidence202406301549225722812 pdf
Please provide any additional information about the incident:
Someone has misused my PAN number to register on two
gaming apps, Winzo and Real11. I have never visited
these apps but there are TDS entries in my Form 26AS
from these apps. This is a case of fax Identity theft, I
have attached my Form 26AS as proof. Please investigate
this as I am not sure if my PAN is being misused on other
platforms too.
Suspect Details
Suspect Name ID Type Country Code ID Number
N/A N/A N/A N/A
Please Upload Any Photograph of Suspect's: N/A
.... .... ....
On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 4:35 PM Aastha Sood
<[email protected]> wrote:
11
Hi,
Here's the cyber crime cell complaint number:
21606240030666.
On your response to pt.3, how do you credit winnings to a
user's bank account? This is a monetary transaction, even if
you're not a fintech, you must have a partner / PG that does the
money transfer for you. Is there no first party check done
before transferring the money? If you do not, there is always
this gap in your process and the same issue can easily repeat in
the future.
Lastly, please explain to me how this is not a 'Tax Identity
Fraud' situation - I have clearly mentioned that someone
(not WinZO) has misused my PAN number and that
WinZO and Real11 have a gap in KYC processes because
of not matching the user and the PAN. In fact, you are
trying to defend your situation by saying you do not do
KYC before transferring money and the same thing can
happen in the future. The idea of my post is also to alert
others in my network to a case of tax identity fraud by
perpetrators so that they can check their own Forms 26
AS. I have not said or suggested that WinZO is the
perpetrator.
Please explain to me what is factually incorrect about my post
and I will be happy to take it down once I understand.
Also, if you do need to call me, please coordinate a time over
email. I appreciate your prompt response but at this moment, it
seems like you haven't yet taken any action to rectify the
situation. I was told by Saumya."
The complainant also clearly indicates that she has nowhere stated
that WinZo is the perpetrator. Notwithstanding the aforesaid
communications, as observed hereinabove, the aforesaid complaint
12
comes to be registered, which becomes a crime in Crime No.413 of
2024. A notice comes to be issued on 09-07-2024 to the petitioner
under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the petitioner submits a
detailed reply to the jurisdictional police on 15-07-2024. It reads
as follows:
"To
CEN PS CENTRAL DIVISION BENGALURU CITY
No-55, Abhaya Bhavana 4th Floor,
Risaldar Road, Sheshadripuram
Bangalore City-560020
E-mail [email protected]
Attention: Police Inspector, CEN Police Station
Subject: Information regarding FIR No. 413 of 2024 in
response to Police Notice dated 09 July 2024 under
section 35(3), BNSS issued to WinZO Games Pvt.
Ltd.
Respected Sirs:
We write in response to your notice dated 09.07.2024 issued
under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
(Notice) received by WinZO Games Pvt. Ltd. ("Company") and
state us under:
1. At the outset I humbly apologize that I could not be
present before you personally as I am indisposed and
suffering from viral fever. The Company manages all its
operations from New Delhi and has no office or physical
presence in Bangaluru or Karnataka. I request you to
dispense with my personal appearance for today and
permit me to have my reply on behalf of the Company
along with the documents submitted through our legal
counsel.
13
2. The Company is a prominent digital entertainment,
gaming, and technology company that was established in
2016. It operates a digital gaming platform called 'WinZO'
since February 2017, which serves as a vernacular
entertainment platform. WinZO provides a diverse range
of skill-based games including free to play games and has
emerged as a leading gaming platform in India.
3. The present matter relates to alleged theft of PAN Card
details of one Ms Aastha Sood ("Complainant") by
certain individuals and misuse of such PAN details on the
Company's online skill gaming platform, WinZO. WinZO
asks for user's PAN Card details for the purpose of
generating TDS certificates. While WinZO asks for PAN
submission, if the users do not submit their PAN details,
or submit incorrect PAN, WinZO deems it as non-
submission of PAN under law and proceeds to deduct the
applicable TDS. A user is contractually and legally bound
to submit the correct PAN, therefore under law, the onus
to submit correct PAN solely lies upon the user.
4. It appears that certain users submitted the
Complainant's PAN details on WinZO, resulting in
TDS entries from WinZO reflecting on the
Complainant's Form 26AS. Pursuant to receiving a
complaint from the Complainant, we discovered
that her PAN was available publicly and is
retrievable from
https://www.scribd.com/document/724970386/P
an-Cards- 500-New-1. This was promptly
communicated to the Complainant for appropriate
action on her behalf and the incorrect TDS entries
in the Complainant's Form 26AS were sent for
rectification.
5. We have also identified the following user accounts
through which the incorrect PAN details were
submitted on the WinZO platform. The details of
such accounts are as follows:
i. User Id-121513557, Phone number-
8440894951, Name at Bank (as shared
by payment gateway)- Shah Mohammed
14
Khan, Geolocation and IP based
location-West Bengal
ii. User Id-133335593, Phone number-
9908903165, Name at Bank (as shared
by payment gateway)- Bhairab Mahato,
Geolocation and IP based location-West
Bengal
iii. User Id-145360950, Phone number-
6395625684, Name at Bank (as shared
by payment gateway)- Rajni,
Geolocation and IP based location -Uttar
Pradesh
6. The Company has no role or involvement in this matter
and as such, the Company has been incorrectly named as
an accused in the FIR No. 413 of 2024. We also seek to
submit the following facts which may be relevant for
effective closure of this investigation qua the Company:
a) The Company has been throughout cooperating
with the Complainant in resolving the issue. In fact,
the Complainant never reached out to the
Company to address her concerns and posted the
issue of misuse of her PAN Card on the LinkedIn
platform. It was our Company's representatives
who proactively contacted the Complainant upon
learning of her LinkedIn post on June 29, 2024. At
12:09 AM on June 30, 2024, the Company
representatives sent an email to the Complainant
requesting her to share her PAN card details while
assuring her of Company's full cooperation.
b) The Company made multiple efforts to reach
out to the Complainant through telephone to
resolve the issue expeditiously, however the
Complainant refused to entertain the calls. On
the Complainant's specific queries regarding
details of the user(s) involved and internal
processes of the Company, on July 1, 2024 we
recommended the Complainant to follow the
due procedure and requested as follows:
15
• Regarding removal of transactions: It
was communicated that the Company is
ready to assist in rectifying the TDS
records provided that a copy of the
complaint/ report as filed with the
relevant authority is submitted to the
Company.
• Regarding identification of the
perpetrator: It was communicated that
such personal Information of users
could only be disclosed upon receiving a
formal request from a competent
authority, such as the police or a
regulatory body. We encouraged the
Complainant to lodge a cybercrime
complaint/ FIR for theft of her PAN and
conveyed our intent to fully cooperate
with the authorities during the
investigation.
• Regarding internal processes of the
Company: It was highlighted that the
misuse of the Complainant's PAN has no
connection with the Company's
operations. The Complainant's PAN was
available in the public domain and was
seemingly also used on another
platform. We recommended the
Complainant to take all necessary
precautions to keep her personal
documents secure to prevent any
potential misuse.
c) In her email dated July 1, 2024, the Complainant
shared an acknowledgement number of her cyber
complaint without sharing the complaint copy. The
Complainant further levelled several unfounded
allegations against the Company with respect to its
internal processes.
16
d) The email dated July 1, 2024 was duly responded
to on behalf of the Company on July 2, 2024,
adequately addressing each of the allegations
raised by the Complainant. It was communicated to
the Complainant that TDS is deducted based on the
information provided by the user. If the
Complainant's PAN has been compromised and
used fraudulently, it is a matter of an external data
breach and does not involve the Company.
e) On July 4, 2024, the Company once again
requested the Complainant to share the complete
copy of her complaint so that the TDS entries could
be rectified. The Complainant was yet again
informed that the Company's internal processes are
in full compliance with the applicable rules and
regulations.
f) The Complainant finally shared a
redacted/incomplete copy of her cyber-
complaint bearing acknowledgment number
21606240030666 with the Company on July
4, 2024. Acting upon the same, the Company
initiated the process of rectification of her
TDS records. On July 9, 2024, the Company
itself raised the matter to Cyber Cell,
Bengaluru notifying them that while we have
not received any request for information from
the authorities, we are proceeding with the
rectification of the TDS records on the basis of
the information provided by the Complainant
herein. The Complainant was also copied on
this communication. A copy of this email is
enclosed herewith as Enclosure A.
g) As evident from the foregoing facts, the
Complainant has fully cooperated with the
Complainant and at all times and encouraged her
to file a complaint against the theft and misuse of
her PAN. However, we are shocked that an FIR has
been filed against the Company itself by the
Complainant. We are further surprised that the
Company has been named as an accused in this
17
FIR without any prior inquiries being made from
the Company. This approach appears unreasonable
and unwarranted, especially given the Company's
proactive efforts to assist in resolving the issue.
7. In view of the above, it is humbly requested that the
name of WinZO Games Pvt. Ltd. be removed from the list
of accused persons in the FIR since there is no cause for
initiation of any criminal proceedings against the
Company.
8. We will provide you with all the necessary documents that
you may require and assure you of our full cooperation
with the investigation. We request that the information
being shared as part of this response is treated as full
compliance with the requisitions made in the Notice.
Needless to say, we remain committed to fully cooperate on the
matter.
Yours sincerely,
Saumya Singh Rathore
WinZO Games Private Limited
Enclosure:
1. Email dated July 9, 2024 sent by WinZO Games Pvt. Ltd. to
the Cyber Cell, Bengaluru
Copy to:
Director-General & Inspector General of Police,
Karnataka State Police Headquarters, No.2.
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore 560-001, Karnataka
Email: [email protected] [email protected]"
18
At paragraph 5 therein, the names of those alleged criminals who
had misused the PAN card of the complainant are also indicated and
prior to the afore-quoted reply to the notice under Section 35(3) of
the BNSS, a communication is also sent to [email protected] by
the petitioner on 09-07-2024, which reads as follows:
"Respected Sirs:
We write on behalf of WinZO Games Pvt. Ltd (Company). The
Company owns and operates an online skill gaming, platform
called WinZO and has its registered office in New Delhi.
We refer to the attached cyber complaint filed by Ms.
Aastha Sood (Complainant) bearing acknowledgment
number 21606240030666. The Complainant has shared
with us a copy of her Complaint requesting the Company
to rectify her TDS records.
We understand that the Complainant's PAN has been
compromised and the details of her PAN have been
submitted on the WinZO Platform by a user. We have
taken note of this external data breach and the cyber
complaint filed by Ms. Aastha Sood.
While we have not received any request for information
from your good offices, we are proceeding with the
rectification of the records on the basis of the information
provided by the Complainant herein.
This is for your kind information.
Regards,
WinZO Games Pvt. Ltd."
(Emphasis added at each instance)
19
Notwithstanding all these, the crime is now registered and
investigated into against the petitioner. There is no complaint
against the petitioner that the petitioner has misused the PAN card
of the complainant. It is the clear case of the complainant herself
that she has not stated anywhere that the petitioner is the
perpetrator of the crime, it is certain individuals and the names of
those individuals are now available with the prosecution pursuant to
investigation. Therefore, in a case of this nature, the submission of
the prosecution that investigation must be permitted on the score
that this is only a tip of the iceberg and all other things have to be
investigated into, is unacceptable.
8. In the case at hand, the offence of cheating punishable
under Section 420 of the IPC is alleged against the petitioner.
Section 420 has its ingredients under Section 415 of the IPC. The
Apex Court, in the case of INDER CHAND BAGRI v. JAGADISH
PRASAD BAGRI1, while elucidating on the ingredients of the
offence punishable under Section 420, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2529
20
17. The contents of the complaint would have to be read
in light of the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of
the IPC and the law settled by this Court through various judicial
dicta. On perusal of the complaint dated 19.09.2013, it is noted
that the complainant/respondent No. 1 has filed the said
complaint invoking Sections 406/420 of the IPC. For ease of
reference, the aforesaid Sections are extracted as under:
"406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.--
Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
xxx
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery
of property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly
induces the person deceived to deliver any property
to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole
or any part of a valuable security, or anything which
is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being
converted into a valuable security, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine."
18. In Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of
Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri)
259 ("Inder Mohan Goswami"), while dealing with
Section 420 of the IPC, this Court observed thus:
"42. On a reading of the aforesaid section, it is
manifest that in the definition there are two separate
classes of acts which the person deceived may be
induced to do. In the first class of acts he may be
induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver
property to any person. The second class of acts is
the doing or omitting to do anything which the person
deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so
deceived. In the first class of cases, the inducement
must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class
of acts, the inducing must be intentional but need not
be fraudulent or dishonest. Therefore, it is the
intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a
person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that
he had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time
21
of making the promise. From his mere failure to
subsequently keep a promise, one cannot presume
that he all along had a culpable intention to break the
promise from the beginning."
19. In light of the facts and circumstances of the present
case, we find that the complainant/respondent No. 1 has failed
to make out a case that satisfies the basic ingredients of the
offence under Section 420 of the IPC. We fail to understand as
to how the allegations against the appellant-accused herein
could be brought within the scope and ambit of the aforesaid
section. On a bare perusal of the complaint, we do not find that
the offence of cheating as defined under Section 420 of
the IPC is made out at all and we do not find that there is any
cheating and dishonest inducement to deliver any property of a
valuable security involved in the instant case.
20. It is settled law that for establishing the offence
of cheating, the complainant/respondent No. 1 was
required to show that the appellant-accused had a
fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making a
promise or representation of not fulfilling the partnership
agreement. Such a culpable intention right at the
beginning cannot be presumed but has to be made out
with cogent facts. In the facts of the present case, there is a
clear absence of material on record to attribute any dishonest
and fraudulent intention to the appellant-accused at the time of
creation of partnership agreement. We must hasten to add
that there is no allegation in the complaint indicating
either expressly or impliedly any intentional deception or
fraudulent/dishonest intention on the part of the
appellant-accused right from the time of formation of the
partnership deed. Nothing has been said on what the
misrepresentations were and how the appellant-accused
intentionally deceived the complainant/respondent No. 1.
Mere allegations that the appellant-accused dishonestly
induced the complainant/respondent No. 1 to part with
the property of the partnership firm and subsequently
sold the property to a third party does not satisfy the test
of dishonest inducement to deliver a property or part
with a valuable security as enshrined under
Section 420 of the IPC.
.... .... ....
22
23. Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention that if it is the
case of the complainant/respondent No. 1 that the offence of
criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 of the IPC,
punishable under Section 406 of the IPC, is committed by the
accused, then in the same breath it cannot be said that the
accused has also committed the offence of cheating as defined
in Section 415, punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. This
Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, (2024) 10 SCC 690 : (2025) 1 SCC (Cri) 281 observed
that there is a distinction between criminal breach of trust and
cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at
the time of making false or misleading representation i.e.
since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of
entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of
trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and
he dishonestly misappropriated the same. Whereas, in case of
cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces
a person by deceiving him to deliver a property. In such a
situation, both offences cannot co-exist simultaneously.
Consequently, the complaint cannot contain both the offences
that are independent and distinct. The said offences cannot
coexist simultaneously in the same set of facts as they are
antithetical to each other.
.... .... ....
25. Furthermore, in Inder Mohan Goswami, it was
held by this Court that the Court must ensure that
criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of
harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an
ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. It was further
held by this Court that it is neither possible nor desirable
to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the
exercise of inherent jurisdiction. In view of the above and
for the reasons stated above, we are of the firm opinion that to
continue the criminal proceedings against the appellant-accused
herein would cause undue harassment to him because as
observed hereinabove, no prima facie case for the offence under
Sections 406 or 420 of the IPC is made out.
26. In this regard, it would be apposite to rely on the
judgment in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 ("Bhajan Lal") with
23
particular reference to paragraph 102 therein, where this Court
observed:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a
series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power Under Article 226 or the inherent
powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we have given the
following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein
such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of
the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and accepted
in their entirety do not prima facie constitute
any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1)
of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission
of any offence and make out a case against the
accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
24
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the Accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to
the institution and continuance of the proceedings
and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code
or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress
for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the Accused and with a view
to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
27. On a careful consideration of the aforementioned
judicial dicta, we find that none of the offences alleged against
the appellant-accused herein is made out. In fact, we find that
the allegations of criminal intent and other allegations against
the appellant-accused herein have been made with a mala-
fide intent and therefore, the judgment of this Court in the case
of Bhajan Lal extracted above, squarely applies to the facts of
these cases. It is neither expedient nor in the interest of justice
to permit the present prosecution to continue."
(Emphasis supplied)
If the law laid down by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted
judgment is pitted against the facts of the case at hand, what would
unmistakably emerge is, the offence of cheating is not brought out
from the allegations in the complaint qua the petitioner. When there
is no transaction between the complainant and the petitioner, it is
ununderstandable as to how the petitioner can even lure the
25
complainant into a transaction, with dishonest intention from the
inception. Therefore, the offence punishable under Section 420 of
the IPC tumbles down.
9. If there are other instances against the petitioner directly
or trail leads to the petitioner, there would be some semblance of
the statement that investigation must be permitted. Here it is a
case where the complainant has never complained against the
petitioner. It is the complainant's case that somebody else has
misused her PAN card. That somebody else is now known. It is for
the investigating agency to go in search of those people and
investigate. For investigating those people, the petitioner against
whom nothing is found cannot be permitted to undergo the
rigmarole of investigation. In this regard, it becomes apposite to
refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF
HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL2, wherein it is held as follows:
".... .... ....
102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the
principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article
2
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
26
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which
we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may
not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid
formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence or make out
a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and
other materials, if any, accomPANying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the
basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
27
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is
a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court holds that if the alleged offence cannot be relatable
to the petitioner or inherently improbable, it cannot be said that
investigation must be permitted in such a case.
10. The offences punishable under Section 66C and 66D of
the Act flows from Section 420 of the IPC or ingredients under
Section 415 of the IPC. Therefore, the very registration of the crime
against the petitioner for the afore-quoted offences, would tumble
down qua the petitioner.
28
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) FIR in Crime No.413 of 2024 registered against the
petitioner at the Central CEN Crime police station on
4-07-2024 and pending before the 45th Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore stands quashed qua
the petitioner.
(iii) It is made clear that the quashment of proceedings in
the impugned crime will not come in the way of any
other proceedings against any other accused.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Bkp
CT:MJ
