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. .
NC: 2025:KHC:43558
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
NC: 2025:KHC:43558
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
NC: 2025:KHC:43558
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
NC: 2025:KHC:43558
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
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
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
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
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
2025 INSC 917
Crl. A. No. 1044-46/2022
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:43558
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
CT:SI
