Private complaint in non-compliance of Section 155(3) of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable
Factual Background: This case arose from a conflict between M/s Caledon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (the petitioners) and Mr. Ashish Koruth Philip (the complainant), concerning ownership and control over an online domain name — routesrezworld.com — and allegations of cyber fraud and data misuse.
The complainant, Mr. Philip, claimed that he personally purchased and registered the domain routesrezworld.com through GoDaddy.com on 28th October 2019, using his own HDFC Bank account, for a payment of ₹400.85. He alleged that the domain was never part of any intellectual property transfer agreement with the petitioners, as the agreements between the parties dated 7th February 2019 were executed before this domain even existed.
He further claimed that the petitioners later attempted to forcibly take control of his domain by changing passwords and credentials, misusing customer credit card data without authorization, and fraudulently operating the website for profit. The complainant alleged that this conduct violated PCI (Payment Card Industry) regulations and amounted to cybercrime.
On the other hand, the petitioners — a company engaged in technological and software services — contended that routesrezworld.com was, in fact, their lawful business asset, transferred to them under an Intellectual Property Purchase Agreement (IPR Agreement) and Service Bond Agreement executed between Mr. Philip’s former firm, StraightDrive Softlab LLP, and the petitioners. They asserted that the complainant’s claim was false and had already been settled through arbitration proceedings, where his rights over the disputed domain were conclusively determined.
Procedural Background:Following the complainant’s allegations, a First Information Report (FIR) dated 3rd May 2025 was registered by Surya Nagar Police Station, Bangalore, bearing Crime No. 0185/2025. The offences invoked included Sections 66, 66C, 66D, 84C, and 85 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, along with several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, including Sections 3(5), 308, 314, 316, 318, 319, 323, 351, 353, 45, and 61(2).
The petitioners, feeling aggrieved, approached the High Court of Karnataka under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), seeking to quash the FIR on grounds that the dispute was purely civil and commercial, not criminal in nature. They argued that the matter had already been adjudicated in arbitration, where the complainant’s claim was rejected, and thus, the continuation of criminal proceedings amounted to abuse of process of law.
Core Dispute:The central question before the Court was whether the FIR and criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners amounted to misuse of criminal law to re-litigate a commercial dispute that had already been conclusively decided in arbitration.
Closely tied to this was the question of ownership over the domain routesrezworld.com: whether it belonged personally to Mr. Philip or was part of the intellectual property assets acquired by M/s Caledon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. under the IPR Agreement.
Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioners: The petitioners argued that the complaint was baseless, malicious, and filed to harass them after losing in arbitration. They produced documents such as the Intellectual Property Purchase Agreement and Service Bond Agreement dated 7th February 2019, which explicitly transferred all technological assets, software programs, and related intellectual property from the complainant’s former firm to the petitioners.
They relied heavily on the arbitration award, which had already restrained the complainant from using or interfering with the domain name routesrezworld.com and the associated trademark Caledonrez. This award had attained finality, and thus, the issue was no longer open to criminal proceedings.
The petitioners also presented email communications from November 2019 and January 2020, showing that the complainant himself had acknowledged the domain as belonging to the company and had sought permission from the company’s directors regarding its use. They further contended that although the initial domain payment was made by the complainant, the company had later reimbursed him, and therefore the domain was purchased for business, not personal use.
They also raised a procedural challenge under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, arguing that the private complaint was invalid because the complainant failed to comply with Section 173(1) and (4) of the BNSS, which require prior intimation to the Superintendent of Police before filing a private complaint. Lodging a report on the cybercrime online portal, they argued, did not satisfy this legal requirement, since the portal was not recognized as a “police officer” or “police station” under the law.
Arguments on Behalf of the Respondent (Complainant): The complainant, argued that the domain was personally purchased by Mr. Philip in October 2019 and therefore was not part of the earlier IPR transfer. She emphasized that the payment for the domain and its four-year renewal was made entirely from his personal HDFC account, and documentary evidence of such transactions was submitted.
She contended that the company later hacked into his GoDaddy account, altered credentials, and gained unauthorized control over the domain, thereby committing offences under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Regarding the procedural objections, she submitted that the filing of a complaint through the cybercrime portal constituted substantial compliance with the requirement of reporting to police under Section 155(3) CrPC (now Section 173 BNSS). Reliance was placed on Supreme Court rulings in S.N. Vijayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka (2025 INSC 917) and Siddartha v. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1044-46/2022), where the Court recognized flexibility in procedural compliance when substantial justice required it.
Judicial Analysis and Reasoning: The court examined the Intellectual Property Purchase Agreement (IPR Agreement) between the parties. Clause 8(a) of the Agreement made it clear that all intellectual property, including software programs, web interfaces, and related technological developments, vested solely in the purchaser — M/s Caledon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. The clause explicitly prohibited the creator (Mr. Philip) from holding or using any copies of source codes or related data, and Clause 8(b) obligated him to execute further documents to give full effect to this transfer.
The Court concluded that, by this clause alone, the ownership of all intellectual property — including domains developed for the company’s business — rested with the petitioner company.
Next, the Court turned to the arbitral award, which had directly addressed the issue of domain ownership. Paragraph 66 of the arbitral award categorically stated that the complainant (Mr. Philip) was restrained from interfering with the domain routesrezworld.com and the trademark Caledonrez, both of which were declared to be the exclusive property of the petitioner company. The arbitrator had also prohibited the complainant from engaging in competing business activities or operating similar websites.
Based on this finding, the Court held that the issue of ownership had already been conclusively determined in arbitration and could not be reopened through a criminal complaint. Allowing the complaint to proceed, the judge observed, would amount to “re-litigation of a settled civil dispute through criminal law machinery,” which is impermissible.
The Court then analyzed the complainant’s argument about personal payment for the domain. Documentary evidence, including emails from 2019 and 2020, revealed that the complainant had acknowledged the company’s ownership of the platform and discussed rebranding the site under the name Caledonrezworld. Furthermore, the company had reimbursed him for the domain registration expenses, reinforcing the conclusion that the domain was acquired for business use, not personal use.
On the procedural aspect, the Court emphasized that merely filing a complaint on the cybercrime portal does not constitute compliance with Section 155(3) CrPC or Section 173 BNSS. The online portal is not equivalent to a “police officer” or a “police station” under statutory definitions. Therefore, the private complaint filed without following this legal procedure was not maintainable.
Citing the principle that criminal law should not be used as a tool to settle business or contractual disputes, the Court reiterated the settled law from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) that where allegations predominantly involve a civil nature, the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of the judicial process.
Final Decision: The Court concluded that the dispute between the parties was purely civil and commercial in nature, having already been settled through arbitration. The FIR, therefore, was an abuse of process. The complaint did not disclose the essential ingredients of any offence under the Information Technology Act or the BNS, 2023.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the FIR dated 3rd May 2025 (Crime No. 0185/2025) registered at Surya Nagar Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 66, 66C, 66D, 84C, and 85 of the IT Act, and multiple sections of the BNS, 2023, as against the petitioners. The court concluded by reaffirming that criminal law cannot be invoked to settle contractual or proprietary disputes that have already been adjudicated by a competent arbitral forum.
Case Title: Caledon Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:43558
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 7222 of 2025
Order Date: 30th October 2025
Court: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
