Karnataka High Court
Amiya Adwitiya vs State Of Karnataka on 7 December, 2020
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
CRL.P. NO.3824 OF 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3824 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1. AMIYA ADWITIYA
DIRECTOR
SQUADCAST INC. AND SQUADCAST
INDIA PVT LTD
S/O MR. A.R. MOHANTY
AGED 29 YEARS
RESIDING AT: NO 1123
SOBHA SILICON OASIS, HOSA ROAD
DODDANAMANGALA VILLAGE
BASAPURA, BENGALURU - 560078
2. BIJU CHACKO
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O MR. K.V. CHACKO
RESIDING AT NO 102F
BALAJI SAPTAGIRI APARTMENTS
KUNDALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560037
3. MANIGANDAN DHARMALINGAM
S/O MR. V. DHARMALINGAM
AGED 26 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1, ROOM NO.2
1ST FLOOR, 3RD MAIN, HOSA PALYA
BENGALURU - 560068
4. ROSHAN R
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O MR. RAVEENDRA SHETTY
RESIDING AT: 1ST FLOOR, L - 6
2ND MAIN ROAD, 6TH SECTOR
HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560102
CRL.P. NO.3824 OF 2020
2
5. RAGHU CHINNANNAN
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O MR. CHINNANNAN N
RESIDING AT: NO.4
SAI NIDHI APARTMENTS
VIJAY KUMAR LAYOUT
DODDAKANALLI
BENGALURU - 560035 ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRADEEP NAYAK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
WHITEFIELD CENTRAL POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY:
HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU -560001
2. SISIR KOPPAKA
S/O MR. SURYANARAYANA KOPPAKA
AGED 30 YEARS
RESIDING AT: B 403, SREE CASA GRANDE
KADUB SANAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560103 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FO R1;
SRI. VEERANNA G. TIGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO QUASH THE SAID FIR IN
CR.NO.80/2020 (CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT AND FIR
ARE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ANNEXURE-B
RESPECTIVELY) AND ANY PROCEEDINGS ARISING THEREOF.
*****
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.P. NO.3824 OF 2020
3
ORDER
1. Sri.Veeranna G.Tigadi, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that no proceedings in a Court of law is initiated in the U.S.Court. What was issued was only a demand for inspection of books and records, which has been replied to by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing of the FIR in Crime No.80/2020 registered on the basis of the complaint by respondent No.2 dated 09.03.2020. In the said complaint of respondent No.2, he has alleged that he had started the Company in the name and style of M/s.Squadcast.com in November 2018 along with one Sri.Amiya Adwithiya and the Company was operating from Bangalore. In the complaint, he alleges that his email-IDs have been transferred in an unauthorised manner so also e-shares belonging to the CRL.P. NO.3824 OF 2020 4 complainant relating to M/s.Sqaudcast.com have been transferred without his knowledge. Apart from the official email-ID, he further alleges that his personal email-IDs which is in the domain gmail.com, me.com, yahoo.com and other online identities which had been created by him have also been hacked and using the same, e-shares of respondent No.2 have been transferred using the official email-ID, which belongs to him, which has not been authorised by respondent No.2.
3. The petitioners are the other directors and/or office bearers of Squadcast.com, who are alleged to have carried out aforesaid actions. The complainant has sought for appropriate investigation into the above matter.
4. Sri.Pradeep Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though respondent No.2 had initially purchased the domain name, CRL.P. NO.3824 OF 2020 5 he has been reimbursed the cost of such purchase by the Company and as such, the domain name, and all email-IDs using the said domain mains vests with the Company.
5. He further submits that respondent No.2 though being the founder, director or a promoter of the Company had certain issues with his working with other members of the staff and as such, he had agreed to take a sabbatical until 19th April 2020 and the said date was fixed for his return after he being examined and found to be fit for work.
6. It is in the meanwhile that the services of respondent No.2 came to be terminated on 3rd March 2020 and thereafter, on account of the said termination of employment, all the intellectual properties standing in the name of respondent No.2 stood vested in the Company's Squadcast.com and as such, the transfer of the CRL.P. NO.3824 OF 2020 6 domain main and/or other intellectual property including the email-IDs, etc., was within the purview, power and authority of the Company and therefore, a terminated employee like respondent No.2 cannot contest the actions taken by the Company let alone term the same to be criminal in nature.
7. He further submits that the transfer of share which have been alleged to have been done behind the back of respondent No.2 are the subject matter of the proceedings before the NCLT, which has been filed by the petitioners and Squadcast.com and as such, the same cannot be subject matter of a criminal complaint.
8. That as regards the transfer of shares, which have been alleged to have been done are subject matter of notice got issued by CRL.P. NO.3824 OF 2020 7 respondent No.2 in the United States, which is pending adjudication.
9. Another proceedings had been filed by the Company before the NCLT in Bangalore as regards the operation and mismangement resorted to by respondent No.2 as also the issuance of additional shares by respondent No.2 to himself and to his father in the said company, which is pending. On the basis of the above, Sri.Pradeep Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no criminal offence, which had been made out by respondent No.2 and as such, the proceedings are required to be quashed.
10. Per contra, Sri.Veeranna G.Tigadi, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that the transfer of shares is admittedly without the consent of respondent No.2 inasmuch as the petitioners and/or company's and/or their other CRL.P. NO.3824 OF 2020 8 colleagues have transferred the shares belonging to respondent No.2 by allegedly exercising their right to purchase unilaterally without even any information or notice being issued to respondent No.2.
11. He further submits that the email accounts which have been hacked are personal in nature, the email accounts of which control has been taken over which amount to hacking are personal in nature and do not belong to the Company and as such, it was not permissible for the petitioner or any of other colleagues to have access to the personal email of respondent No.2 and in this regard, he has sought for investigation and action to be taken.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the records.
CRL.P. NO.3824 OF 2020 9
13. The petitioner and respondent No.2 have filed huge number of documents amounting to around two thousand pages or so with various documents, agreements, correspondence, email exchange, notices, etc., said to have been exchanged between the petitioner and respondent No.2. A perusal of the some of the relevant documents pointed out by both the Counsel during the course of arguments would indicate that respondent No.2 was indeed a founder and director of the Company, he was holding shares in the Company as also he being the Chief Technological Officer was incharge of the domain name of the Company.
14. In the email of Sri.Amiya Adwitiya of February 2020, it is noticed that the respondent No.2 was requested to go on a sabbatical with a promise to return to work on 19th April 2020. Thus, it is CRL.P. NO.3824 OF 2020 10 rather surprising that while the said sabbatical was going on, his services were terminated on 3rd March 2020 and thereafter, the transfer of administration of the domain/email-ID as also the transfer of shares has been resorted to. Whether the same is authorised, the same is in accordance with the agreements entered into between the parties, etc., cannot be gone into by this Court while exercising the jurisdicion under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The same would require a detail trial and be subject to cross- examination of the witness in the said proceedings.
15. It is further pointed out that the petitioner themselves and/or the Company has filed a complaint in PCR No.750/2020, which is pending before the 4th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore for the alleged criminal CRL.P. NO.3824 OF 2020 11 offences by respondent No.2. The petitioner also having filed a criminal proceedings, it cannot be said that the disputes between the parties are purely civil in nature. Both of the parties have exercised their right to approach the Criminal Courts and/or the Criminal Justice System seeking for redress under the said system for the alleged criminal offences. If that be so, to consider that one of the allegation is civil in nature and the other being criminal in nature would not be proper. Since both the parties have approached the Criminal Justice System, it would not be proper for this Court to intervene and to quash the proceedings merely on the contention now raised that the present complaint is civil in nature and/or that the actions taken by the petitioners were authorised CRL.P. NO.3824 OF 2020 12 under the agreements entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.2.
16. In view thereof, reserving all defences the above proceedings is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Prs*