The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered against several individuals, including Micah Mark and others, who are accused of being part of an alleged foreign funding network linked to The Timothy Initiative, a US-based organisation. The Court held that the allegations, particularly those relating to suspected movement of foreign funds into Left Wing Extremism (LWE)-affected regions, required a full investigation and could not be halted at the initial stage.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed two connected criminal petitions challenging the FIR, observing that the material placed before the Court disclosed sufficient prima facie grounds to permit the investigation to continue.
Background of the Case
The case arose after Micah Mark was intercepted at Bengaluru's Kempegowda International Airport, where authorities allegedly found him carrying 24 international debit cards. During subsequent searches conducted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), investigators claimed to have uncovered an alleged network involving foreign debit cards issued by a US bank and used to withdraw large amounts of cash through ATMs across India.
According to the ED, the investigation suggested that funds amounting to approximately ₹92.55 crore were withdrawn between November 2025 and April 2026. The agency alleged that the money was channelled through debit cards issued under a common name and used in different parts of the country, including areas affected by Left Wing Extremism. Based on this information, the ED shared details with the Karnataka Police under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), following which an FIR was registered for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
The petitioners argued that the ED had no legal authority to initiate such communication leading to registration of an FIR and contended that the invocation of UAPA provisions was without any factual basis.
Court's Observations
The High Court rejected the challenge to the ED's authority, holding that Section 66(2) of the PMLA specifically permits the Director or authorised officers to share information with other agencies whenever material indicates a possible violation of any other law.
The Court observed:
“Section 66 of the PMLA deals with disclosure of information... the provision is intended to ensure that information uncovered in the course of investigation under one enactment does not remain siloed where it reveals infractions under another.”
Rejecting the argument that the ED could only communicate offences directly connected with the PMLA, the Court said such an interpretation would defeat the purpose of the legislation.
The Court further noted:
“Statutes operating in cognate fields must be construed harmoniously, not in watertight compartments.”
Addressing the UAPA charges, the Court clarified that at the stage of considering a petition to quash the FIR, it was not required to determine whether the allegations were ultimately true. The only question was whether there existed sufficient prima facie material to justify an investigation.
The bench observed:
“At this stage, the Court is not called upon to return findings of guilt; it is required only to examine whether prima facie material exists to justify investigation.”
The Court also declined to accept the contention of the co-accused that they had no connection with Micah Mark, observing that the communication sent by the ED itself outlined the alleged roles attributed to each of them.
Court on National Security
While refusing to interfere with the investigation, Justice Nagaprasanna emphasised the importance of allowing investigative agencies to examine allegations involving suspected extremist financing.
The Court observed:
“The Courts must therefore be circumspect in stifling investigation, particularly where allegations touch upon issues of economic subversion intertwined with National security.”
The bench added that allegations involving suspected financial channels supporting extremist activities required thorough investigation before any judicial interference.
Decision
Dismissing both criminal petitions, the Karnataka High Court held that this was not a fit case for exercising its inherent powers to quash the FIR at the threshold.
However, the Court clarified that the observations made in the order were limited to deciding the petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and would not influence the ongoing investigation or any future proceedings.
The petitioners were also left free to pursue all legal remedies available to them if a final report is eventually filed.
Case Details
Case Title: Micah Mark & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 8401 of 2026 c/w Criminal Petition No. 8417 of 2026
Judge: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Decision Date: July 1, 2026
-300x169.webp)
