A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, led by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, on 21st February, 2026 quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against online gaming company WinZo Games Private Limited in relation to an allegation of PAN card misuse on its platform. The Bench ruled that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the company was unsustainable in law, although it clarified that the order will not prejudice other accused or separate criminal matters pending before the trial court.
The FIR in question was lodged on 4 July 2024 by a woman who alleged that her Permanent Account Number (PAN) details had been stolen and used without authorisation on WinZo’s gaming application. The complaint was reportedly made at the behest of WinZo’s representatives so that appropriate tax remedies such as reversal of tax deducted at source (TDS) could be initiated.
Initially, the FIR was registered against the alleged individual accused of misusing the PAN details. However, law enforcement also named WinZo as an accused, invoking provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (including Section 420 for cheating) and Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 for identity theft and cheating by personation respectively.
The High Court examined whether the allegations, even if taken at face value, disclosed the essential ingredients of cheating or identity theft against the company.
For an offence under Section 420 IPC, dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction is indispensable. Mere occurrence of misuse on a digital platform does not ipso facto establish corporate complicity.
The Court noted that the complaint did not demonstrate fraudulent intent attributable to the company and also there were no specific averments showing that the company actively participated in or facilitated identity theft. It is well established principle that criminal prosecution cannot be sustained on speculative or omnibus allegations.
In effect, the Court found no prima facie material to justify continuation of proceedings against the company.
The Karnataka High Court’s decision to quash the FIR against WinZo brings into focus the continuing relevance of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in corporate criminal litigation.
Though couched in broad terms, this power is extraordinary and sparingly exercised. In corporate disputes particularly those arising out of commercial, contractual, tax, fintech, or digital platform operations Section 482 has become a critical safeguard against over-criminalisation.
This ruling underscores two core principles of Indian criminal jurisprudence: first, that criminal liability must be founded on clear ingredients of the offence alleged; and second, that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) are meant to prevent abuse of process not to conduct a mini-trial.
While the FIR has been quashed, WinZo continues to face scrutiny under other statutory frameworks, including financial and foreign exchange regulations. The order does not interfere with separate regulatory or enforcement proceedings
The Karnataka High Court’s decision is not a blanket exoneration of corporate actors. Rather, it is a reaffirmation of foundational criminal law principles:
- Allegations must disclose the essential ingredients of the offence;
- Mens rea cannot be presumed;
- Criminal law is not a substitute for regulatory enforcement;
- High Courts retain inherent powers to prevent misuse of criminal process.
In an era where commercial disputes increasingly intersect with criminal law — especially in the digital economy such rulings serve as an important reminder that the coercive machinery of criminal prosecution must be anchored in legal precision, not mere accusation.
