Karnataka High Court Reserves Order on Quashing of FIR in US Foreign Funding Case
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday reserved its order on petitions filed by six individuals seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered in Bengaluru. The FIR alleges the illegal channelling of over Rs 92.55 crore in foreign funds into India, with a portion claimed to have reached areas affected by left-wing extremism in Chhattisgarh and Assam.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna orally directed the police not to take any precipitative action against the petitioners until the court pronounces its order. The six individuals—Micah Mark, Jonathan S. Rajan, Ajit Varghese Mathai, Varghese Chacko, Bablu Kurmi, and Supreme Joy—have been charged under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The FIR was registered at the Kothanur police station based on a complaint by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The complaint alleges that The Timothy Initiative (TTI), headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina, routed foreign funds into India using US bank debit cards. Cash was reportedly withdrawn through ATMs across Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, and Assam, in alleged violation of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) and the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA).
According to the ED, between November 2025 and April 2026, transactions worth Rs 92.55 crore ($9.9 million) occurred illegally. It is further alleged that over 1,000 such foreign debit cards were distributed across India over the past few years.
During the hearing, the court observed: “If you [the police] allege a UAPA offence against someone, his future is marred. You have to be careful in registering the offence. UAPA offences cannot spring from the air; there should be some foundation.”
Senior advocate Shyam Sunder, representing Mark, argued that the offence was registered based on suspicion and the ED officer who filed the complaint lacked credible evidence. He contended that the ED was investigating an offence under FEMA and could not have shared information with the police under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Sunder stated, “Everything is on the basis of suspicion, and there is no proof. The ED officer is hallucinating about the suspicion, and the Bengaluru police have registered a case thinking PMLA is passing the information.”
Senior advocate S. Basavaraj, appearing for the other accused, argued that they had not received any international debit cards from Mark and were not involved in any of the alleged activities.
Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadeesha submitted that the funds withdrawn by the accused using the debit cards were allegedly used to fund left-wing extremist organisations banned under the UAPA. Meanwhile, advocate Madhu N. Rao, representing the ED, stated that Mark was arrested based on a lookout circular and that the agency seized 24 international debit cards. He argued that prima facie evidence collected during the FEMA investigation led to the information being shared with the Bengaluru police, and that the ED is empowered to share such information under Section 66(2) of the PMLA.
The court indicated that the ED does have the power to share information received during investigations with other agencies, but added, “Whether information received while probing a case under the FEMA Act can be shared with other agencies is a question we will have to answer.”
Concluding his submissions, Sunder remarked that being a Christian preacher did not mean Mark supported left-wing extremism, adding, “There has to be a limit to being paranoid.” The court then noted, “Your charity has no clarity. That is what their allegation is.”
The order is expected to clarify the boundaries of information-sharing between investigative agencies and the prerequisites for invoking the stringent UAPA provisions.
