CASE NAME: Miss Dayeena Banu v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
CASE NUMBER: Criminal Petition No. 2169 of 2025
COURT: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
DATE: 05 August, 2026
QUORUM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna
FACTS
The petitioner, Advocate Dayeena Banu of Mysuru, was implicated in a case arising from a written complaint addressed directly to the High Court by one Theresa, whose son, Vishnu Devan, had been arrested in a murder case and remanded to judicial custody. Theresa was first approached by one Marina Fernandes, who demanded Rs. 10 lakh, claiming it would be paid to a lower court judicial officer to secure bail; when bail was not granted, Fernandes issued three cheques that were later dishonoured. Theresa was then introduced to one Aarathi, who claimed proximity to a High Court Judge, collected Rs. 72,000, and later demanded a further Rs. 1 lakh. The petitioner is alleged to have then told Theresa that High Court Judges do not entertain amounts as small as Rs. 1-2 lakh, and that Rs. 50 lakh or more would be required to secure her son’s release. Aggrieved, On 18 December 2024, Theresa submitted a written complaint to the High Court. Based on the letter, the Registrar General of the court directed the Registrar General of the Vidhana Soudha Police Station to take cognizance and initiate criminal proceedings which led to the registration of Crime No. Crime No. 117 of 2024 under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking to set aside the FIR.
ISSUES
- Whether the allegations in the FIR that the petitioner had demanded the money to secure his bail against a High Court Judge, prima facie constituted the ingredients of cheating as defined in Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023.
- Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the FIR at the very threshold, where the allegations are on the integrity of the judicial institution.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (cheating) equates to Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
- Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 which is equivalent to Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (inherent powers of the High Court)
- Case Laws Used: Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kunwar Singh, Criminal Appeal No. 709 of 2021, Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand and others, 2024 INSC 772.
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER:
The petitioner contended that she was already facing disciplinary proceedings before the State Bar Council on the same allegations, and that the ingredients of cheating under Section 318(4) BNS were not attracted. The High Court was urged to quash the FIR on the ground that it had been registered mechanically without being taken up for preliminary investigation upon a mere letter addressed to the High Court and thus was an abuse of process.
RESPONDENTS:
The State and the Registrar General opposed the petition, submitting that soliciting money in the name of a sitting Judge to secure bail struck at the credibility of the judiciary and could not be equated with an ordinary case of cheating between private parties. It was argued that the investigation had already been stalled by interim orders and ought to proceed.
ANALYSIS
The Court rejected the contention that cheating was not made out even prima facie, holding that the traditional understanding of the offence, requiring dishonest inducement from inception, has acquired new dimensions given emerging patterns of crime, and that Theresa’s inducement to part with money on the pretext of bail was dishonest from the outset. The Court observed that allegations of demanding money in a Judge’s name cannot be treated as ordinary cheating between private individuals, since they concern the credibility of the institution and warrant unhindered investigation. Relying on Neeharika Infrastructure, Kunwar Singh, and Somjeet Mallick, the Court reiterated that an FIR is not an encyclopedia of all imputations, and that courts ought not conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence at the threshold, particularly where the allegations disclose a cognizable offence.
JUDGMENT
The High Court dismissed the petition, declined to quash the FIR, vacated all interim and protective orders operating in the petitioner’s favour, and directed that investigation into Crime No. 117 of 2024 proceed to its logical conclusion.
CONCLUSION
The High Court held that allegations of soliciting money in the name of a sitting Judge to secure bail cut at the root of institutional integrity and cannot be equated with an ordinary allegation of cheating between private parties. Such allegations mandate a full and unhindered investigation rather than premature interference under the inherent jurisdiction. The threshold to quash an FIR under Section 528 of the BNSS is low, and only to be done sparingly and when, on a prima facie reading of the allegations, no cognizable offence is disclosed, a point which is obviously not satisfied here.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: GAURAV VIBHU RANJAN
Read the Judgement copy below:
Miss Dayeena Banu v. State of Karnataka & Ors
