Karnataka High Court
CRL.A/704/2022 of M/S FLEX -I PARTNERS Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 23 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010172942022 NC: 2026:KHC:52383 CRL.A No. 704 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 704 OF 2022 ( A ) BETWEEN: 1. M/S FLEX-I PARTNERS PREVIOUSLY A PARTNERSHIP
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 704 OF 2022 (A)
BETWEEN:
1.
M/S FLEX-I PARTNERS
PREVIOUSLY A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
NOW A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013
RENAMED AS FLEXI HR CONSULTANTS
PRIVATE LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY
MS.NEETHA SHIVASHARANAPPA POOJARI
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT 61/2
3RD CROSS, 7TH MAIN
RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR
RAMMORTHY NAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 016.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIKHAR AHMED B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
INSPECTOR OF POLICE
COMMERCIAL STREET POLICE STATION
NO.67, COMMERCIAL STREET
Digitally signed
by GEETHA P G
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
FRAZER TOWN, SHIVAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-01.
2.
MR. SANIL PILLAI
S/O MR.R.S.PILLAI
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT NO.49, BALAJI LAYOUT
SINGAPURA VILLAGE
VIDYARAYANPURA
BANGALORE-560 097.
3.
MRS. SIMMI PILLAI
W/O MR.SANIL PILLAI
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT SAI DEEPA COMPLEX
1ST FLOOR, NEAR MASJID
GOKULAM ROAD, PUTPARTHI
ANDHRA PRADESH-515 734.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING
TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2022 PASSED BY THE I
A.C.M.M. IN C.C.NO.11471/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND
REMAND THE C.C.NO.11471/2015 BACK TO THE FILE OF I
A.C.M.M. FRESH CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the I Addl. CMM, Bengaluru in C.C.No.11471/2015 which pertains to offence punishable under Section 509 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 66A and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short 'IT Act, 2000'). The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. In view of Section 378(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., for an order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate in respect of cognizable and non-bailable offence, an appeal lies to the Court of Sessions.
3. The offence under Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine. Offence under Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000 is also punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees. The said
HC-KAR
offences are non-bailable and cognizable offences. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appellant is directed to present this complaint before the Court of Sessions;
(ii) Registry is directed to return the appeal memo along with necessary documents to the appellant to present the same before the Court of Sessions;
(iii) The appellant can avail the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE
PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14