Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.NAGAPRASANNA
Naveen Kumar R. @ Naveen S/o G. Rama Krishna – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court hears arguments and response. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's consideration of representations. (Para 4 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. background on petitioners and complaint details. (Para 5 , 10) |
| 4. arguments about data theft complaint. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. insufficient evidence for continuing proceedings. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. order to dispose of the petition. (Para 13) |
ORDER :
1. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in CC.No.33429/2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 66 and 66(C) of the Information Technology Act, 2008 and Sections 408, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short).
2. Heard Sri. Siji Malayil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State.
3. Respondent No.2/complainant though served long ago has remained unrepresented.
4. This Court on 28.11.2025 had passed the following order:
"Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Addl.SPP for respondent No.1.
The complainant is served on 13.10.2025.
Therefore, to grant one more opportunity for representation of the complainant, list the matter o
Charges based on public domain information do not substantiate criminal proceedings for data theft, leading to quashing of the case.
The court emphasized the importance of procedural compliance and the distinction between civil and criminal liability in cases involving business disputes and misuse of information.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
