Criminal Court, Bengaluru dismisses phone theft complaint over lack of proof

The Criminal Court, Bengaluru dismissed Nandini Kulkarni’s complaint seeking a finding that Rohit Menon committed theft of her smartphone and appropriate criminal consequences. The court held that the available record did not prove either that Menon took Kulkarni’s specific phone or that any taking was dishonest rather than a mistaken pickup.

The court made no criminal finding against Menon and awarded no monetary relief. It recorded that the outcome rested on lack of proof, rather than an affirmative finding that Menon had established every aspect of his explanation.

• The complaint was dismissed.
• No criminal finding was made against Rohit Menon.
• No monetary award was made.

The court accepted that a Copper Bean Café receipt placed Menon at the café at 5:42 p.m. However, it found that the receipt did not identify the phone he picked up or establish that it was Kulkarni’s device.

Kulkarni relied on the allegation that Menon left with the phone and did not answer repeated calls for more than 20 minutes. The court held that the delay could raise suspicion, but did not supply reliable proof of identity or dishonest intent. As the judgment stated, “suspicion is not proof.”

The record had no video footage and no independent eyewitness identifying the exact phone in Menon’s hand. The court also found no clear and reliable timeline of the alleged return, despite references to a WhatsApp message and a claimed return time.

Menon’s mistaken-pickup account was not fully proved either, the court said. But it held that he did not bear the same burden as Kulkarni, who had to prove the central criminal accusation with reliable evidence. The unresolved evidentiary gaps were material.

“The court cannot convict or find criminal wrongdoing on a gap-filled timeline alone.”

Kulkarni submitted that Menon picked up her smartphone from the counter at Copper Bean Café in Indiranagar, left with it, and failed to answer repeated calls for more than 20 minutes. She argued that the delay, together with the receipt placing him at the counter, supported an inference that the incident was not an innocent mix-up.

Her side acknowledged that it had no video footage or separate eyewitness identifying the particular phone in Menon’s possession. It asked the court to rely on the sequence of events and the alleged unexplained delay.

Menon disputed theft and said he had mistakenly picked up a similar black phone from the counter while paying. He referred to a WhatsApp message about returning the phone, said he did not use its password or attempt to sell or hide it, and maintained that he returned after realising the error.

Menon also referred to café staff who could support his account of returning to the café. The court noted, however, that the hearing record did not provide a clear, reliable timeline establishing when the phone was returned.

The dispute concerned a smartphone said to have been taken from the counter at Copper Bean Café in Bengaluru. Kulkarni alleged that Menon took her phone and kept it while calls went unanswered; Menon accepted that he had taken the phone but maintained it was a mistake.

The evidence before the court included a printed café payment receipt showing that Menon paid for one coffee at 5:42 p.m. References were also made to a WhatsApp message at 6:24 p.m. concerning return of the phone, but the judgment found the record insufficiently clear to establish a reliable return timeline.

The dismissal is confined to the evidence presented in this proceeding. The court did not find that Menon’s account had been affirmatively proved in every detail; it found only that Kulkarni had not proved the criminal allegation on the available record.