The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused of storing child pornographic images and videos on his mobile phone. The Court held that mere storage of such material can amount to an offence under Section 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It clarified that transmission of the material is not necessary to attract criminal liability.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order on January 12, 2026 in Sri Binoj P.J. v. State by Karnataka Commercial Street Police Station & Anr., Criminal Petition No.17142 of 2025.
The petitioner, Binoj P.J., aged about 38 years and a resident of Thrissur District, Kerala, approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). He sought quashing of proceedings in Special Case No.2119 of 2025 pending before the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Bengaluru. The case concerns offences under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 15 of the POCSO Act.
Advocate Deenabandhu Rai N. appeared for the petitioner, while High Court Government Pleader Vinay Mahadevaiah represented the State.
Background Of The Case
The case emerged during the investigation of a different criminal matter. Police had registered Crime No.1 of 2025 against several accused persons in that case. During the investigation, authorities seized the petitioner’s mobile phone and sent it for forensic examination.
Forensic experts allegedly discovered several images and videos containing child pornography on the device. Based on this discovery, the police registered a separate complaint against the petitioner for offences under the IT Act and the POCSO Act.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the material had merely been stored on his phone and had not been circulated or transmitted. According to him, mere possession of such material does not constitute an offence under Section 67B of the IT Act or Section 15 of the POCSO Act.
He also pointed out that the trial court had already framed charges in the case.
Court’s Observations
The High Court rejected the petitioner’s contentions after examining the record and the relevant legal position.
Justice Nagaprasanna relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2611). The Supreme Court had examined the scope of Section 15 of the POCSO Act and Section 67B of the IT Act in that case.
The Supreme Court clarified that the law penalizes storage or possession of child pornographic material when it occurs with the required intent. The Court also explained that such offences fall within the category of “inchoate crimes.”
Referring to that ruling, the High Court observed that Section 15 of the POCSO Act punishes storage or possession of child pornography when done with the specified intent. The provision does not require proof that the material was transmitted or disseminated.
High Court’s Decision
Applying the Supreme Court’s reasoning, the Court held that the petitioner’s argument was contrary to the settled legal position. Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the petitioner had admittedly stored sexually explicit images and videos involving children on his mobile phone.
The Court observed that such storage itself could attract criminal liability under the statutory provisions. The absence of evidence of transmission would not absolve the petitioner from liability.
The Court also noted that the trial court had already framed charges and the case had reached the stage of evidence. At such a stage, the High Court found no justification to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings.
Holding that the petition lacked merit, the Court dismissed the criminal petition. It allowed the trial in Special Case No.2119 of 2025 to continue.
