Karnataka High Court
Ms. Supriya Meripo vs State Of Karnataka By on 15 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:20376
CRL.P No. 1093 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1093 OF 2019 (482(Cr.PC) /
528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MS. SUPRIYA MERIPO
D/O RATNAM MERIPO
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
PERMANENT RESIDENCE
C/O. MR. CYRIL MERIPO
NO. 12-16-17/1, "PREMA"
1ST STREET, GANDHINAGAR
NIDADAVOLE,
WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH-534 301.
ALSO AT:
NO. 78, EMERALD HOUSE,
KHB COLONY,
5TH BLOCK
KORAMANGALA,
Digitally BANGALORE-560 095.
signed by
HEMALATHA J ...PETITIONER
Location: (BY SRI. NAGABHUSHANA REDDY K., ADVOCATE)
HIGH COURT
OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
STATE BY CYBER CRIME
POLICE STATION
BANGALORE,
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BANGALORE-560 001.
2. MR. ANAND NAGARAJAN
S/O. T. M. NAGARAJAN
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:20376
CRL.P No. 1093 of 2019
HC-KAR
CEO, DEXLER INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,
R/AT NO.5,
DOMMALUR SERVICE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 071.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M R PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SACHIDANANDA., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING THAT TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 31.01.2015 TAKING THE COGNIZANCE ALLEGED
OFFENCES AGAINST THE ABOVE PETITIONER AND TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ABOVE PETITIONER IN
C.C.NO.3588/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 1ST A.C.M.M.,
BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 66A, 67, 67A OF I.T ACT R/W
SEC.500, 506, 507 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the prosecution launched against her in C.C.No.3588/2015 pending on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 66A, 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (henceforth referred to as -3- NC: 2026:KHC:20376 CRL.P No. 1093 of 2019 HC-KAR 'the IT Act') read with Sections 500, 506 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth referred to as 'IPC').
2. (i) The respondent No.2 lodged PCR No.6921/2013 contending that he is a Founding Director and Chief Executive Officer in Dexler Information Solutions Private Limited. The petitioner was one of the employees of the company, who was employed between 03.12.2007 and 25.01.2008, on which day she quit her employment. The respondent No.2 claimed that he had nothing to do with the petitioner other than a professional relationship.
(ii) He claims that on 25.01.2008, the petitioner wrote a mail to him that she had quit her employment, a copy of which was sent to another director of the company. The respondent No.2 alleged that during her short stint in the company, she did not co-ordinate with her colleagues and did not perform her duties as a dutiful employee of the company, though she was a technical writer for the company. He alleged that after the petitioner left the services of the company, she started sending offensive mails to him, which were indecent, obscene, vulgar and defamed not only him but also his -4- NC: 2026:KHC:20376 CRL.P No. 1093 of 2019 HC-KAR company. He therefore filed O.S.No.8013/2010 against the petitioner for perpetual injunction, which was ultimately decreed and the petitioner was restrained from sending e- mails.
(iii) Despite the above, the petitioner started sending offensive e-mails from May 2010 till the date of filing the private complaint, which contained grossly offensive content, thereby causing annoyance, inconvenience to him. He claimed that the mail sent by the petitioner contained obscene messages and sexually explicit acts and videos and in some cases, she had sent offensive e-mails containing his morphed images along with the petitioner. Such e-mails were also sent to the other directors of the company with an intention to malign him and cause mental agony.
(iv) The respondent No.2 gave particulars of some e- mail from which the petitioner had sent offensive messages, which he claimed to be more than 700 in number. He also alleged that the petitioner had created more than 200 e-mail IDs, which were fake and anonymous and which were used to harass him. He also alleged that the petitioner continued to -5- NC: 2026:KHC:20376 CRL.P No. 1093 of 2019 HC-KAR send such offensive, obscene, indecent messages to third parties including his parents and co-employees of the company, using fake and anonymous email IDs. She had also threatened to cause disrepute to him and his company.
(v) The respondent No.2 claimed that he spoke to the father of the petitioner and informed him to advise her not to send such offensive e-mails to him and his colleagues and his family members. However, her father pleaded inability to advise the petitioner. Soon after coming to know that the respondent No.2 had called her father, the petitioner started sending threatening and offensive e-mail on 04.04.2012.
(vi) The respondent No.2 then left with no other alternative approached the police, who did not entertain his complaint and therefore, he was compelled to file a private complaint. He therefore prayed that suitable action be initiated against the petitioner for violation of Sections 66A, 67 and 67A of the IT Act, read with Sections 500, 506 and 507 of IPC.
(vii) The trial Court referred the matter for investigation by the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 after collecting material and recording statements of relevant witnesses and -6- NC: 2026:KHC:20376 CRL.P No. 1093 of 2019 HC-KAR mahazars filed a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 66A, 67 of the IT Act r/w Sections 506, 507 of IPC. The trial Court after perusing the material along with the charge sheet, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 66A, 67 of the IT Act r/w Sections 506 and 507 of IPC and issued process. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order taking cognizance and issuing process as well as the filing of charge sheet is before this Court.
3. (i) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had not sent any messages which contained sexually explicit material or lascivious content which evoked the prurient interest of the respondent No.2. He therefore submits that the trial Court committed an error in taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 67 of the IT Act. He contends that Section 66A of the IT Act is quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India - AIR 2015 SC 1523. He thus contends that the trial Court committed an error in taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 66A of the IT Act. -7-
NC: 2026:KHC:20376 CRL.P No. 1093 of 2019 HC-KAR
(ii) He also submits that the respondent No.1 has not collected any material to show that the laptop from which the offensive materials were secured belonged to the petitioner. Therefore, the prosecution launched against the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 67A of the IT Act and the cognizance of the offence taken by the trial Court.
(iii) He further submits that the petitioner and the respondent No.2 were childhood friends in Muscat and that they shared an intimate relationship. He also submits that the petitioner is in possession of various e-mails written by the respondent No.2, which shows the intimacy between them. He contends that the investigating officer has not considered these e-mails but has only looked into the mails allegedly written by the petitioner to the respondent No.2. He contends that if those mails were taken into consideration, then the petitioner cannot be accused of forwarding obscene messages or lascivious messages. He contends that Section 67A of the IT Act applies only when any message or an e-mail containing sexually explicit material is forwarded to evoke the prurient -8- NC: 2026:KHC:20376 CRL.P No. 1093 of 2019 HC-KAR interest of the receiver and not when two individuals exchange messages.
(iv) He contends that assuming that the e-mails, which were mentioned in the charge sheet were sent by the petitioner, it was an exchange between two individuals and therefore, it was incumbent upon the investigating officer to find out the trail of e-mails that led to the e-mails written by the petitioner. He therefore submits that taking cognizance for an offence under Section 67A of the IT Act is wholly misplaced and the trial Court has done so without proper application of mind.
(v) He contends that respondent No.2 had failed to comply Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, while filing the private complaint and hence the charge sheet filed is liable to be set at nought. He relied upon the judgment in Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and another vs. State of U.P. and others -(2015) 6 SCC 287.
4. (i) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner had quit the company in 2008 itself and there was no occasion for the -9- NC: 2026:KHC:20376 CRL.P No. 1093 of 2019 HC-KAR petitioner to continue any relationship with the respondent No.2. He contends that the petitioner on her own had been sending sexually offensive material, as if to invoke the prurient interest of the respondent No.2. He contends that despite the Civil Court granting an order of injunction, the petitioner continued to send such sexually explicit e-mails and therefore, an offence under Section 67A of the IT Act was committed.
(ii) He also contends that the messages sent by the petitioner to the co-employees and the directors of the company as well as his father were per se defamatory and hence, the offences under Sections 506 and 507 of IPC was made out.
5. The learned High Court Government Pleader reiterated the submissions of learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and submitted that the investigating officer has secured e-mails that have originated from the mailbox of the petitioner and these contain sexually explicit material and therefore an offence under Section 67A of the IT Act is committed and he therefore contends that the case requires
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20376 CRL.P No. 1093 of 2019 HC-KAR trial and the petitioner has to establish her innocence before the trial Court.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shreyas Singhal (referred supra), has struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as unconstitutional and therefore the charge sheet filed against the petitioner for an offence under Section 66A of the IT Act does not survive. However, the charge sheet as well as the order taking cognizance for an offence under Section 67 of the IT Act would survive. Section 67 of the IT Act, reads as follows:
"67. Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.- Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20376 CRL.P No. 1093 of 2019 HC-KAR circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees."
8. The respondent No.2 has invited the attention of the Court to one of the e-mails purportedly written by the petitioner to the respondent No.2, which reads as follows:
"Dear Darling Anand, I miss you... imagining you to be the pink teddybear, cuddling up in your arms. Muuuahhh ;) ... sexy beast. you're HOT !! I imagine you kissing me all over in Muscat, our school. Just you and me... making love on the stage in the assembly hall with the curtains closed in our uniforms;)...muaah !!... I was watching this movie called THAT'S MY Boy - a new Adam Sandler flick, it's crazy and hilarious, there is a love making scene on the stage in school, in the first 5 minutes of the movie, It's so funny. I'd love to be caught on stage making love to you.
You're a wild cat aren't you.. :) passionate love making... just you and me.. in school, ISM @Muscat. C you
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20376 CRL.P No. 1093 of 2019 HC-KAR there..muaaah:) ... don't loosen you're grip, hold me tight, real tight close to you...bare chested...
Imagine you're the teddy bear that i am holding on to.. what would you want me to do.. I realize that you desire me sexually else you wouldn't have come up with the whole Victor Angues linked Profile id - Emails and long chat sessions and the lovemaking discussion on Howard- Dominique's first meeting @Fountainhead.
Give me a wish list of all your sexual fantasies, Do you want to know what mine are..?
.... getting raped by you... just as Howard Roark rapes Dominique Francon in Fountainhead, the way we discussed it on skype 6 months ago. Will you rape me in Muscat ?
Love you.. :)))"
9. The above e-mail was written on 08.08.2012. A reading of the above sample e-mail would indicate that the petitioner had transmitted material which is lascivious and with an intent to appeal to the prurient interest of the respondent No.2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.2 had also written such e-mails is something that the petitioner will have to establish before the Court and that cannot be taken into account to set at nought
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20376 CRL.P No. 1093 of 2019 HC-KAR the proceedings exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. If these offensive mails are in continuation of the e-mails written by the respondent No.2 or in response to the e-mails written by the respondent No.2, the petitioner will have to establish the same before the Court and seek discharge of an offence punishable under Section 67 of the IT Act. This Court is handicapped to look into extraneous material to set at nought the prosecution launched against the petitioner.
10. As regards the contention that respondent No.2 had not complied Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is relevant to note that the respondent No.2 had stated that he had approached the police and that his complaint was not entertained. Now that the police have investigated and filed a charge sheet, it would be too late in the day to quash it on the ground that an affidavit was not filed alongwith the private complaint. At any rate the facts in the case of Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava (referred supra), is different from the facts in the present case.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20376 CRL.P No. 1093 of 2019 HC-KAR
11. In that view of the matter, this petition is dismissed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file an application for discharge before the trial Court along with all available material. If an application is filed, the trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law and dispose of the same at the earliest.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19