Karnataka High Court
M/S Caledon Technologies India Pvt Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 30 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 7222 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7222 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) /
528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. M/S CALEDON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 2013,
NOVEL BUSINESS PARK, BALDWINS ROAD,
NEELASANDRA, BANGALORE-560030.
ALSO AT SERENE BUILDING NO. 106, 4TH FLOOR,
4TH C CROSS ROAD, 5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT, S.G. PALYA,
BANGALORE - 560095.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
MR. VISHAL SONI.
2. MR. HARDEEP NAGRA,
S/O. GURPAL SINGH NAGRA,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
by RENUKA ACCORDING TO THE IMPUGNED FIR AT
Location: HIGH C/O. M/S. CALEDON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA LTD..
NOVEL BUSINESS PARK, BALDWINS ROAD,
NEELASANDRA, BANGALORE-560030.
ALSO AT C/O. M/S. CALEDON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA
PVT. LTD., SERENE BUILDING NO. 106, 4TH FLOOR,
4TH C CROSS ROAD,
5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT,
S.G. PALYA, BANGALORE-560095.
3. MR. HARBINDER ATHWAL,
S/O. LATE LAKHVIR SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS (SENIOR CITIZEN NOT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 7222 of 2025
HC-KAR
CLAIMED), ACCORDING TO THE IMPUGNED FIR AT
C/O. M/S. CALEDON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT.
LTD.,
NOVEL BUSINESS PARK, BALDWINS ROAD,
NEELASANDRA, BANGALORE-560030.
ALSO AT C/O. M/S. CALEDON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA
PVT. LTD.,
SERENE BUILDING NO.106, 4TH FLOOR, 4TH C CROSS
ROAD,
5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT, S.G. PALYA,
BANGALORE-560095.
4. MR. VICKY BANGA @ HARBUKSH SINGH BANGA,
S/O. DR. AMRIK SINGH BANGA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
ACCORDING TO THE IMPUGNED FIR AT
BANGA SHOES, 762 MAIN ROAD,
JHEEL KURANJE, DELHI,
NEW DELHI-110051.
ALSO AT C/O. M/S. CALEDON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA
PVT. LTD., NOVEL BUSINESS PARK,
BALDWINS ROAD, NEELASANDRA,
BANGALORE-560030.
ALSO AT C/O. M/S. CALEDON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA
PVT. LTD., SERENE BUILDING NO. 106, 4TH FLOOR,
4TH C CROSS ROAD, 5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT,
S.G. PALYA, BANGALORE-560095.
5. MR. SAMRIK ATHWAL,
S/O. MR. HARBINDER SINGH ATHWAL,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, ACCORDING TO THE
IMPUGNED FIR AT C/O. M/S. CALEDON
TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD., NOVEL BUSINESS
PARK, BALDWINS ROAD, NEELASANDRA,
BANGALORE-560030.
ALSO AT C/O. M/S. CALEDON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA
PVT. LTD., SERENE BUILDING NO. 106, 4TH FLOOR,
4TH C CROSS ROAD, 5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT, S.G. PALYA,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 7222 of 2025
HC-KAR
BANGALORE-560095.
6. MR. AJAY KUMAR GOEL,
S/O. MR. RISHI RAM GOEL,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS (SENIOR CITIZEN NOT
CLAIMED), ACCORDING TO THE IMPUGNED FIR AT
3 NPL APARTMENTS, VIKASPURI,
NEW DELHI-110018.
ALSO AT C/O. M/S. CALEDON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA
PVT. LTD., NOVEL BUSINESS PARK, BALDWINS
ROAD, NEELASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560030.
ALSO AT C/O. M/S. CALEDON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA
PVT. LTD..
SERENE BUILDING NO. 106, 4TH FLOOR, 4TH C CROSS
ROAD,
5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT,
S.G. PALYA,
BANGALORE-560095.
7. MR. VISHAL SONI,
S/O. MR. R.L. SONI,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
ACCORDING TO THE IMPUGNED FIR AT
SCO 19, SECOND FLOOR,
JUBILEE JUNCTION, SECTOR 66,
SOHANA RUPNAGAR, S.A.S. NAGAR,
MOHALI, PUNJAB - 140308.
ALSO AT C/O. M/S. CALEDON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA
PVT.
NOVEL BUSINESS PARK,
BALDWINS ROAD, NEELASANDRA,
BANGALORE-560030.
ALSO AT C/O. M/S. CALEDON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA
PVT. LTD..
SERENE BUILDING NO. 106, 4TH FLOOR, 4TH C CROSS
ROAD, 5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, INDUSTRIAL
LAYOUT, S.G. PALYA, BANGALORE-560095.
BUT CURRENTLY AT C/O. MR. RAMISHER LAL SONI,
SONI NIWAS, AMRITSAR ROAD,
KAPURTHALA, PUNJAB-144601.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 7222 of 2025
HC-KAR
8. MR. MADHU SEKHAR BODDE,
S/O. MR. B. VENKATARAMANA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
ACCORDING TO THE IMPUGNED FIR
AT 3-148-64, ANAPAGUPTA, MADANPALLE,
CHITTOOR-517325.
ALSO AT C/O. M/S. CALEDON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA
PVT. LTD., NOVEL BUSINESS PARK,
BALDWINS ROAD, NEELASANDRA,
BANGALORE-560030.
ALSO AT C/O. M/S. CALEDON TECHNOLOGIES INDIA
PVT. LTD., SERENE BUILDING NO.106, 4TH FLOOR,
4TH C CROSS ROAD, 5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT, S.G. PALYA, BANGALORE-
560095
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SURAJ SAMPATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE
SURYANAGAR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. MR. ASHISH KORUTH PHILIP,
S/O. MR. KALLUPARAMBIL PHILIP,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/ AT NO. A-203
2ND FLOOR, VAKIL MAGNOLIA,
SY NOS. 115/1 AND 2, MADIVALA VILLAGE,
ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE-562106.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. PRAMILA NESARGI, SR. ADVOCATE A/W
SMT. BINDU V. ADVOCATES FOR R2)
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:43558
CRL.P No. 7222 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C (FILED UNDER SECTION 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED FIR DATED 03.05.2025 BEARING
CRIME NO.0185/2025 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
(SURYANAGAR POLICE STATION), FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 66, 66(C), 66(D),
84(C) AND 85 OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000
AND SECTIONS 3(5), 308, 314, 316(1), 316(2), 318(1),
318(3), 318(4), 319(1), 319(2), 323, 351, 351(2), 351(3),
353, 45 AND 61(2) OF THE BNS 2023 (ANNEXURE-A HEREIN)
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, WHO HAVE BEEN ARRAYED AS
ACCUSED NO.1 TO 7 AND 9 THEREIN, CURRENTLY PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE 2ND ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN)
AND JMFC COURT, ANEKAL, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is by accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking quashing of the FIR dated 3.5.2025 bearing Cr.No.185/2025 registered by respondent No.1 for offences punishable under Sections 66, 66(C), 66(D), 84C, and 85 of Information technology Act, 2000 and section 3(5), 308, 314, 316(1), 316(2), 318(1), 318(3), 318(4), 319(1), 319(2), 323, 351, 351(2), 351(3), 353, 45, and 61(2) of BNS, 2023. .
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 7222 of 2025 HC-KAR
2. The gist of the complaint is as under:
Respondent No.2/complainant claims that he purchased and registered a domain "routesrezworld.com"
from "Godaddy.com." by making payments towards purchase of domain from his personal account held in HDFC Bank while receipts/order No.1577709100. After making a payment of Rs.400.85 towards purchase of the domain, GoDaddy.com registered the domain in the name of the complainant as the legal owner of the domain.
3. Respondent No.2 therefore asserts that the said domain was never a part of IPR or Service Bond Agreement as the domain was purchased on 28.10.2019, which is much after execution of IPR agreement and Service Bond Agreement and handing over all the properties of M/s. StraightDrive Softlab LLP to the present petitioners on 7.2.2019. Respondent No.2 specifically asserts that he purchased and registered the Domain routesrezworld.com for his personal use. The complainant -7- NC: 2025:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 7222 of 2025 HC-KAR also alleges that the present petitioners were pressurizing to part with the domain or transfer/licence/sell the domain routesrezworld.com, which was equally denied by the complainant. Respondent No.2/complainant is aggrieved by the fraudulent activities of the petitioners in charging the customers credit cards without knowledge and approval of the customers. Respondent No.2/complainant alleges that petitioners had pre-designed a plan to remove the complainant from the accused No.1/company and implicate him in false cases.
4. The complainant referring to the arbitration proceedings and alleging foul play by the petitioners/accused has alleged that petitioners are guilty of violating PCI regulations and therefore, alleges that petitioners have changed the credentials on his card with an intention to fraudulently charge on the credit of the complainant which prima facie demonstrates the fraud committed by these petitioners on other customers credit cards including the complainant's card without knowledge -8- NC: 2025:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 7222 of 2025 HC-KAR and approval of the customers. Therefore, a private complaint is filed alleging that petitioners have illegally hacked the credentials of routesrezworld.com and they are using the same and making unlawful gains. Therefore, have committed offence punishable under Sections 45, 61(2), 308, 314, 316(1), 316(2), 318(1), 318(3), 318(4), 319(1), 319(2), 323, 351, 351(2)(3) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and read with Sections 66, 66C, 66D, 84-C and 85 of Information Technology Act, 2000.
5. Petitioners' counsel reiterating the grounds in the petition has taken this Court through minute details relating to usage of disputed domain and has tried to demonstrate that respondent No.2's belated claim over the domain is an afterthought and in view of the adjudication at the hands of the arbitrator a fresh stale claim is made re-agitating the issue that is given quietus by the arbitrator relating to the rights over the disputed domain by launching a criminal prosecution in respect of a dispute -9- NC: 2025:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 7222 of 2025 HC-KAR which is essentially a commercial dispute. He would place reliance on the disputed domain which was in fact purchased by the first petitioner. Reliance is placed on receipts issued by Godaddy.com. which clearly indicates the name and GST number of petitioner No.1/Company. These documents are evidenced at Annexures-H and J respectively. Placing heavy reliance on the Email dated 27.11.2019 evidenced at Annexure-F, he would contend that respondent No.2 has acknowledged at an undisputed point of time that the domain belongs to petitioner No.1/company. Reliance is also placed on intellectual property purchase agreement dated 7.2.2019 and followed by service contract dated 7.2.2019, which are annexed at Annexures-K and L respectively.
6. The learned counsel would point out that the Arbitrator by a detailed award has given quietus to the issue relating to ownership over the disputed domain. Referring to the relevant portion of the award, he would contend that respondent No.2 in fact was restrained from
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 7222 of 2025 HC-KAR interfering or claiming the domain name "routesrezworld.com" and trade mark "Calendonrez".
7. The learned counsel would further point out that respondent No.2 has also filed the suit in O.S.No.4994/2023 seeking injunction against petitioner No.1 from using the domain and further also sought relief of mandatory injunction directing petitioner No.1 to provide the login credentials. This compelled petitioner No.1 to file an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was allowed and the issue was referred to the arbitrator. This order has attained finality.
8. The second limb of argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the private complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. is clearly hit by Sections 173(1) and 173(4) of BNSS, 2023. Citing sub-section 4 of Section 173 of BNSS,2023, it is vehemently contended that respondent No.2 has not
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 7222 of 2025 HC-KAR approached the Superintendent of Police and in fact the DIG of Police of Economic and Cyber offences has sent the Email addressed to respondent No.2 to contact the jurisdictional police station, which respondent No.2 has not done till this date. The next crucial point addressed by the petitioners' counsel is that mere lodging a complaint on cyber crime reporting portal does not amount to compliance under Section 173(1)(ii) of BNSS, 2023. He would contend that the said portal is neither a police Officer in-charge of the police station nor a police station. Therefore, even on this count, he would point that the proceedings stand vitiated and the reference under Section 223 of BNSS, 2023 to the Investigating Officer is bad in law.
9. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel has vehemently argued and contended that as per the IPR agreement, the complainant in good faith handed over all the materials belonging to complainant's company i.e. M/s.StraightDrive Softlab LLP pursuant to execution of IPR
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 7222 of 2025 HC-KAR agreement on 7.2.2019. She would contend that the disputed domain was purchased by the complainant independently and that payment was made by the complainant who has purchased the domain from his personal account held in HDFC Bank. She would contend that the disputed domain was never part of IPR agreement as the domain was purchased on 28.10.2019. Referring to the records, she has vehemently argued and submitted that after purchase and registering the domain, respondent No.2/ complainant has renewed the domain for a period of four years and the same is evident from the copy of the renewal order of domain from GoDaddy.com. Reliance is placed on the Bank statements to substantiate that complainant has got renewed the domain.
10. While countering the petitioner's contention that the private complaint is not maintainable, she would contend that the complaint lodged with the cyber portal amounts to compliance with Section 155(3) of Cr.P.C. and therefore, the private complaint filed by the complainant is
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 7222 of 2025 HC-KAR covered by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S. N. Vijayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka1 case. She has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex court in Siddartha's2 case and she concludes her argument by contending that the private domain of the complainant was virtually hacked by the petitioners and therefore, there is sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners and therefore, this is not a fit case where this Court can grant indulgence under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP.
12. Before this Court delves into the matter, this Court deems it fit to advert to some crucial documents, which have significant bearing on the issue involved in the 1 2025 INSC 917 2 Crl. A. No. 1044-46/2022
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 7222 of 2025 HC-KAR case on hand. Relevant portion of the IPR agreement is extracted as under:
"8. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS a. The Intellect Possessor acknowledges that any and all of the copyright, trademarks and other Intellectual Property Rights used or subsisting in or in connection with the development of Technological / Software Programme / Web-Interface, delivery of Services, enhancements, improvements, modifications and all other developments thereon and with respect to all documentation, flowcharts, drawings, specifications, manuals and other data which were created by the Intellect Possessor are or shall always vest in (as the case may be) and shall be the sole property of Purchaser without the requirement of any further acts on behalf of either Party. The Intellect Possessor shall not during this time or at any time henceforth in any way question or dispute the ownership by the Purchaser thereof. The Intellect Possessor shall not hold any copy (hard or soft) of any such information, source and object codes together with all related listings and documentation i.e (Intellectual Property).
b. The Intellect Possessor agrees to execute or cause to be executed all such instruments and do or cause to do all such things as may be reasonably necessary or desirable to give full effect to the above and shall co-operate and assist the Purchaser in enforcing its rights under this Clause."
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 7222 of 2025 HC-KAR
13. On reading the extracted portion, the IPR agreement clearly discloses that the intellect possessor/respondent No.2 acknowledges that all of the copyright, trademarks and other intellectual property rights used or subsisting in or in connection with the development of Technological/software programme/web- interface, delivery of services, enhancements, improvements, modifications and all other developments thereon and with respect to all documentation, flowcharts, drawings, specifications, manuals and other data which were created by the Intellect Possessor are or shall always vest in (as the case may be) and shall be the sole property of Purchaser without the requirement of any further acts on behalf of either party. The Intellect Possessor shall not during this time or at any time henceforth in any way question or dispute the ownership by the purchaser thereof. The Intellect possessor shall not hold any copy(hard or soft) of any such information, source and
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 7222 of 2025 HC-KAR object codes together with all relates listings and documentation i.e.(intellectual property) Clause 8(a) of the Intellectual Property Purchase Agreement further contemplates that respondent No.2, who is the intellect possessor in the present case on hand shall not hold any copy (hard or soft) of any such information, source and object codes.
14. Clause 8(b) further obligates respondent No.2 to execute or cause to be executed all such instruments and do or cause to do all such things as may be reasonably necessary or desirable to give full effect and shall co-operate and assist the purchaser/petitioner No.1 in the case on hand in enforcing its rights under this Clause.
15. Therefore, on reading clause 8(a) and (b) of IPR agreement, it is clearly evident that the right to possess domain which is part of the intellectual property clearly vests with petitioner No.1/company.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 7222 of 2025 HC-KAR
16. The next crucial question which clinches the issue and will not detain this Court for long in figuring out the dispute regarding the right to retain domain by either parties is the finding recorded by the Arbitrator which gives a closure to the claim of respondent No.2 over the domain. Para 66 of the arbitral award which relates to finding on Issue No.17 clearly clinches the issue. Therefore, it is apposite for this Court to extract para 66, which reads as under:
"66. I have perused the Service Bond Agreement dated 07.02.2019 as well as the Intellectual Property Purchase Agreement dated 07.02.2019 as well the statement and exhibits. Having admitted the execution of the agreements / contracts dated 07.02.2019, the contents of a written document duly signed by the parties has to be read in letter and spirit and no oral assertion contrary to the same can be taken into account. The clauses of the contracts and specific and there is no ambiguity. Even otherwise in the field of Information Technology, the primary asset is the know-how and the trade secret, which, if exposed, leads to detrimental consequences and may also lead to
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 7222 of 2025 HC-KAR complete collapse of the entire business setup. If the respondent is not restrained, the claimant company could face drastic financial consequences as such I am of the considered view that the restrained order passed upon the application under section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is re-affirmed and accordingly for a period of five years from 31.08.2021, (a) the respondent is restrained from carrying on either alone or in partnership or in collaboration, or be employed directly or indirectly in any capacity whatsoever in any manufacture or development or carry out the activities which are of the same kind and nature as to business and manufacturing carried on by the Claimant Company;
(b) the respondent is restrained from operating and similar flatform, offering similar services, which are being provided / supplied by the claimant company;
(c) the respondent is also restrained from approaching the clients of the claimant company for providing the similar services which are being provided by the Claimant Company; (d) The respondent is also restrained from seeking employment with any other person, entity, company, concern etc carrying out the similar business & manufacturing / creating activities which are being carried out by the claimant company; (f) the respondent is further restrained from operating his web site Paas Technologies LLP or any other web site
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 7222 of 2025 HC-KAR of the similar kind, (g) the respondent is restrained from interfering or claiming the domain name "routesrexworld.com" and trade mark "Caledonrez", which is the exclusive property of the claimant, (h) the respondent is restrained from carrying on the business of Car Rentals and from running the company in the name and style "CAR RENTALS BOOKING LIMITED", with these observations and directions this issue is decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondent."
17. The above extracted portion clearly discloses that the arbitrator has clearly held that the disputed domain routersrexworld.com and trademark "Calendonrez" is the exclusive property of petitioner No.1/company and respondent No.2/complainant is restrained from carrying on the business of car rentals and running the company in the name and style "Car Rentals Booking Limited".
18. The arbitrator has awarded compensation on the ground that respondent No.2 has violated the terms and conditions of the intellectual property agreement dated 7.2.2019. On reading the above extracted portion of
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 7222 of 2025 HC-KAR the arbitral award, the contention of respondent No.2, the rights over the domain is not decided by the arbitrator and therefore, complainant can maintain this complaint is not only misplaced but also misconceived and this Court is not inclined to accede to the said contention.
19. This Court also deems it fit to answer the contention of respondent No.2 that the domain was exclusively purchased by respondent No.2 and the payment was made through his personal account while securing the domain and for renewal is also factually incorrect and contrary to the records.
20. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to extract the Emails, which reads as under:
"Subject: Salary Statement & Expense Sheet -
November 2019
From: Manikanda Prabhu P
<[email protected]> on Wed, 27 Nov 2019 21:59:55
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 7222 of 2025 HC-KAR To: Ajay Kumar Goel <[email protected]> CC: Ashish Philipp <[email protected]>, Vicky Banga <[email protected]>, Ak Goel <[email protected]> 2 attachment(s) -
Salary_Statement_November_2019xlsx (18.77kb), Expense_Sheet_November_2019.pdf Hi Ajay, Salary Statement & Expense sheet for November 2019 attached. Kindly find the data. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Note:
CTI 0014 Himanshu Gupta Incentive Rs.500 CTI 0017 Bhavana Sri Maddina LOP 1 Days CTI 0015 Muhammed Bilal K P Transport Allowance Rs. 1800 Thanks & Regards Manikanda Prabhu | HR Manager Caledon Technologies India Private Limited Skype: hr.caledon | M: 91-9524918965"
"Re: General Presentation Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:03 PM Ashish Philip <[email protected]> To: Sam Athwal <[email protected]>
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 7222 of 2025 HC-KAR CC: Megan Nagra <[email protected]>, Vicky Banga <[email protected]> Hi Megan, Noted. Let me work on it and get back to you draft of first slide by Monday. I will buzz you incase of any questions.
Quick question, Rezworld we need to demonstrate as separate platform or Routes in-house software?
Going forward new affiliate getting onboard will see different name and logo. It will not be Routesrezworld it will be caledonrezworld and platform name will CALEDONREZ. It will be showcased as platform not a product.
Regards, Ashish"
21. On reading these Email extracts, it is clearly evident that respondent No.2 was seeking concurrence from the Directors of petitioner No.1 company regarding the domain name. He has also created passwords to be utilized by the concerned staff of petitioner No.1 company. The next crucial question is in regard to payment of domain price. The records clearly reveal that though the payment initially was made by respondent No.2, the said
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 7222 of 2025 HC-KAR amount was reimbursed by the company and the same is evident from the documents produced. Even on this count, a feeble attempt by respondent No.2 before this Court that domain is in his individual property and was not part of the IPR agreement cannot be acceded to.
22. The next question in regard to maintainability of private complaint for non-compliance of Section 155(3) of Cr.P.C. may not detain this Court for long. Mere registering a complaint on the Online portal of Cyber Crime branch does not amount to compliance of Section 155(3) of Cr.P.C. The online portal of cyber crime branch can in no way assume the status of a police Officer or police station as defined under Section 173(1)(ii) of BNSS, 2023. Even on this count, the private complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and therefore, the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto stand vitiated and the proceedings is liable to be quashed even on this count.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43558 CRL.P No. 7222 of 2025 HC-KAR
23. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned FIR dated 3.5.2025 bearing Cr.No.0185/2025 registered by respondent No.1(Suryanagar Police Station) for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 66, 66(C), 66(D), 84C and 85 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 3(5), 308, 314, 316(1), 316(2), 318(1), 318(3), 318(4), 319(1), 319(2), 323, 351, 351(2), 351(3), 353, 45 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, insofar as the petitioners are concerned is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1 CT:SI