1

Reserved on : 23.01.2026

Pronounced on : 21.02.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21

ST

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 45

th

ACMM NRUPATUNGA

ROAD, BENGALURU CITY REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/ U/S

420 OF IPC 1860 AND UNDER SECTION 66C, 66D OF INFOR MATION

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 FOLLOWIN G:-

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in que stion

registration of a crime in Crime No.413 of 2024 reg istered for

offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and Sections 66C

and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘t he Act’ for

short).

2. Heard Sri Sajan Poovayya, learned senior counse l

appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Jagadeesh a, learned

Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1

st

respondent.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: -

3.1. The petitioner-Company is a prominent digital

entertainment, gaming and technology Company establ ished in the

year 2016. It operates a digital gaming platform ca lled ‘WinZo’

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAP RASANNA

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 he r 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 d etails 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 regis tered

before the jurisdictional police. The complainant t hrough 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 a ppearing

for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the issue is about

loss of ₹1200/- on the alleged misuse of PAN card o f the

complainant. Beyond this there is no allegation aga inst 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 potent ial 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 c annot be laid

against the petitioner.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor

Sri B. N. Jagadeesha appearing for the 1

st

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 Prad esh.

Therefore, steps would be taken against those persons. If only the

petitioner cooperated, the things would have been d ifferent. 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 su bmissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have per used the

material on record.

7

7. The 2

nd

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: AASTHA.SOOD1@GMAIL.COM

Dear Sir, Madam,

SUBJECT: PAN THEFT AND MISUSE ON GAMING APPS

My PAN No. (XXXXXXXXXX) has been published online i n

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 i n

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 Departme nt

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 an d 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 Verificatio n

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 R EAL-11. So,

one factor is clear that the petitioner has not got anything do with

the misuse. It is by criminals who published on scr ibd using the

petitioner’s gaming platform. Prior to the registration of crime on

30-06-2024 the petitioner communicates to Aastha So od, the

complainant. The mail trail is as follows:

“Aastha Sood <aastha.sood1@gmail.com>

Sun, Jun 30, 2024 at 9:47 AM

To: Saumya Singh Rathore <saumya@winzogames.com >

Cc: Legal Team <legal@winzogames.com >, Paavan Nanda

<paavan@winzogames.com> Shaswat Shekhar

<shaswat.shekhar@winzogames.com >

Hi,

Please reach out to me on 9920553096.

9

On Sat, Jun 29, 2024, 11:06 PM Saumya Singh Rathore

<saumya@winzogames.com > wrote:

Hi Aastha,

Came to my attention that your personal Identificat ion

data has been compromised and misused on multiple

platforms including ours. It's a very serious conce rn for

us and would like to be in touch with you immediate ly to

work with you to report this breach and fraud condu cted.

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 <aastha.sood1@gmail.com >

To: Legal Team <legal@winzogames.com >

Can you please confirm if the screenshot of the cyb er crime

complaint is what you needed and the process for re moval of

these TDS transactions has been initiated from your end?

On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 7:41 PM Aastha Sood

<aastha.sood1@gmail.com > wrote:

Here you go, please confirm if this is what you nee d. 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 emai l on the

non-requirement of KYC for deducting TDS. I don't w ish to

engage on this matter further, but I hope this gives you clarity.

Please keep me posted on the status of the TDS tran sactions

removal.

10

Cyber Crime Incident

Complaint/Incident Details

Acknowledgement Number: 21006240030666

Category of complaint Online and Social Media Rela ted

Crime

Sub-Category of complaint Fake/impersonating Profil e

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 tw o

gaming apps, Winzo and Real11. I have never visited

these apps but there are TDS entries in my Form 26A S

from these apps. This is a case of fax Identity the ft, I

have attached my Form 26AS as proof. Please investi gate

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

<aastha.sood1@gmail.com > wrote:

11

Hi,

Here's the cyber crime cell complaint number:

21606240030666.

On your response to pt.3, how do you credit winning s 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 che ck 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 becaus e

of not matching the user and the PAN. In fact, you are

trying to defend your situation by saying you do no t 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 frau d 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 rect ify 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 afores aid 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 4

th

Floor,

Risaldar Road, Sheshadripuram

Bangalore City-560020

E-mail id-cenpscentralbcp@ksp.gov.in

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 09.07.202 4 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 n ot be

present before you personally as I am indisposed an d

suffering from viral fever. The Company manages all its

operations from New Delhi and has no office or phys ical

presence in Bangaluru or Karnataka. I request you t o

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 lega l

counsel.

13

2. The Company is a prominent digital entertainmen t,

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 ra nge

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. WinZ O

asks for user's PAN Card details for the purpose of

generating TDS certificates. While WinZO asks for P AN

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 accou nts

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 fo r

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 th at the

name of WinZO Games Pvt. Ltd. be removed from the l ist

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 cooperat ion

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: police@ksp.gov.in igpksrp@ksp.gov.in”

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 spctroid@ ksp.gov.in 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, p latform

called WinZO and has its registered office in New Delhi.

We refer to the attached cyber complaint filed by M s.

Aastha Sood (Complainant) bearing acknowledgment

number 21606240030666. The Complainant has shared

with us a copy of her Complaint requesting the Comp any

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 cyb er

complaint filed by Ms. Aastha Sood.

While we have not received any request for informat ion

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 registe red 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 petitione r 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 pun ishable

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 BAGRI

1

, 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 who le

or any part of a valuable security, or anything whi ch

is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being

converted into a valuable security, shall be punish ed

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 separ ate

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 pers on

deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so

deceived. In the first class of cases, the induceme nt

must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second clas s

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 t hat

he had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the t ime

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-accuse d 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 42 0 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 ma king a

promise or representation of not fulfilling the par tnership

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 indica ting

either expressly or impliedly any intentional decep tion 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-accus ed

intentionally deceived the complainant/respondent N o. 1.

Mere allegations that the appellant-accused dishone stly

induced the complainant/respondent No. 1 to part wi th

the property of the partnership firm and subsequent ly

sold the property to a third party does not satisfy the test

of dishonest inducement to deliver a property or pa rt

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 o ffence 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 representati on 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 simultaneo usly.

Consequently, the complaint cannot contain both the offences

that are independent and distinct. The said offence s 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 o f

harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an

ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. It was f urther

held by this Court that it is neither possible nor desirable

to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern th e

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 XI V

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 a n

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 th e

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 p etitioner, 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 aga inst the

petitioner. It is the complainant’s case that someb ody else has

misused her PAN card. That somebody else is now kno wn. It is for

the investigating agency to go in search of those p eople and

investigate. For investigating those people, the petitioner against

whom nothing is found cannot be permitted to underg o 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 LAL

2

, wherein it is held as follows:

“…. …. ….

102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various

relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV a nd 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 de fined 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 inform ation

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 no t

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 o f

Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in t he 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 const itute 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 un der

Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or compl aint

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 (un der

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 A ct,

providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the

aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly atten ded 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 ingred ients 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:

O R D E R

(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 45

th

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