Private Complaint In Non-Compliance Of Section 155(3) Of CrPC 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 complaint was baseless, malicious, and filed to harass after losing in arbitration.
• Documents such as the Intellectual Property Purchase Agreement and Service Bond Agreement dated 7th February 2019 explicitly transferred all intellectual property to the petitioners.
• Arbitration award restrained complainant from using or interfering with routesrezworld.com and Caledonrez.
• Emails showed complainant acknowledged domain belonged to the company and sought permission for use.
• Initial domain payment reimbursed by company — proving business use.
• Procedural challenge: filing through cybercrime portal did not satisfy Section 173 BNSS.

Arguments on Behalf of the Respondent (Complainant)

• Domain personally purchased in October 2019, not part of earlier IPR transfer.
• Company allegedly hacked GoDaddy account and altered credentials.
• Cybercrime portal complaint considered substantial compliance, relying on SC judgments.

Judicial Analysis and Reasoning

Review of IPR Agreement

The court examined the IPR Agreement. Clause 8(a) vested all IP with M/s Caledon Technologies. Clause 8(b) required further execution of documents to effect transfer.

Thus, ownership included domains developed for business.

Arbitral Award Findings

Para 66 restrained complainant from interfering with routesrezworld.com and Caledonrez. Issue conclusively decided — criminal proceedings cannot reopen.

Domain Payment Argument

Emails showed complainant acknowledged company’s ownership. Reimbursement proved business purpose.

Procedural Non-Compliance

Cybercrime portal not “police officer” or “police station”. Complaint not compliant with Section 155(3) CrPC / Section 173 BNSS.

Applicable Legal Principle

Criminal law cannot settle civil disputes — Bhajan Lal precedent applied.

Final Decision

• Dispute purely civil/commercial.
• Arbitration already settled matter.
• FIR was abuse of process.
• FIR dated 3rd May 2025 (Crime No. 0185/2025) quashed.

Case Details

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