The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a 38-year-old man seeking to quash criminal proceedings against him for allegedly storing pornographic content involving children on his mobile phone.
Rejecting the plea, the single-judge bench of M Nagaprasanna reiterated that storing child pornographic material itself constitutes an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), even if the content was not transmitted or shared.
“...it is not transmission alone, but even storage of child pornographic content which has the capacity of being transmitted, which would become an offence under Section 15 of the POCSO Act,” the court observed while hearing the petition.
The petitioner, a resident of Thrissur in Kerala, had sought to quash the FIR registered against him by the Commercial Street Police Station in Bengaluru in 2025. He was booked under Section 67B (electronically publishing or transmitting material involving children in sexual acts) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section 15 (storage, possession, transmission of child pornographic material) of the POCSO Act.
According to the State, represented by advocate Vinay Mahadevaiah, a forensic examination of the accused’s mobile phone revealed sexually explicit pictures and videos involving children.
The petitioner, represented by advocate Deenabandhu Rai, argued that mere storage of such material without dissemination would not amount to the offences alleged in the FIR and chargesheet.
However, the court rejected this contention, noting that the petitioner had admitted to storing sexually explicit content involving children. “Merely because the petitioner has not transmitted anything from his phone would not mean that he would not be liable for the ingredients of the said offence,” the court said.
The bench also relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Just Rights For Children Alliance v S Harish case, which clarified that storing such abusive material with the intention of transmitting or disseminating it can constitute an ‘inchoate’ offence.
The High Court further noted that intent can be inferred from the manner in which the material is stored and the circumstances under which it was not deleted, destroyed or reported.