The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered against advocate Miss Dayeena Banu, holding that allegations of collecting money by claiming it would be paid to a judge for securing bail require a full-fledged investigation. Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that such allegations, if true, strike at the credibility of the judicial institution and cannot be dismissed at the threshold.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by advocate Miss Dayeena Banu, who challenged the registration of Crime No.117/2024 by the Vidhana Soudha Police Station for an offence under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with cheating involving dishonest inducement to deliver property. The FIR originated from a complaint lodged through the Registrar General of the Karnataka High Court following directions issued by a coordinate Bench.
According to the complaint, the mother of an undertrial prisoner alleged that she had initially paid ₹10 lakh to another advocate after being assured that her son would obtain bail. She later claimed that additional sums were sought through intermediaries on the representation that the money would be passed on to a High Court judge. The complaint further alleged that Dayeena Banu informed her that a judge would not accept a small amount and demanded a much larger sum for securing bail. Acting on these allegations, the High Court directed registration of a criminal case for investigation.
Court's Observations
Justice Nagaprasanna rejected the contention that the allegations did not disclose the ingredients of cheating. The Court noted that the complaint alleged dishonest inducement from the very beginning, resulting in the complainant parting with money in the belief that it would secure her son's release.
The Court observed:
“The inducement and release of property is clearly made out in the case at hand... the ingredients of the offence of cheating are, on the face of it, made out.”
The judgment also emphasised that an FIR is only the starting point of a criminal investigation and is not expected to contain every detail of the alleged offence. Relying on several Supreme Court decisions, including Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that High Courts should not evaluate the truthfulness of allegations while considering a plea to quash an FIR if a cognizable offence is disclosed.
Justice Nagaprasanna further highlighted the wider institutional implications of the allegations.
“The allegation, if found to be true, would cut at the root of the integrity of the Institution,” the Court observed, adding that cases involving claims of money being collected in the name of judges are not merely private disputes but matters affecting public confidence in the judiciary.
Court's Decision
Finding that the allegations disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence warranting investigation, the Karnataka High Court declined to interfere with the FIR. The Court held that the investigation must proceed and that the petition seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings was without merit.
Consequently, the criminal petition was dismissed and the interim protection earlier granted to the petitioner stood dissolved.
Case Details
Case Title: Miss Dayeena Banu v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 2169 of 2025
Judge: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Decision Date: 05 August 2026
