The court emphasized that private complaints must comply with jurisdictional prerequisites, and prior arbitration findings conclusively resolved the domain ownership dispute, rendering the FIR unfounded.

Headnote:(A) Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 66, 66

(C), 66

(D), 84C and 85 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 3(5), 308, 314, 316(1) to 316(4), 319(1), 319(2), 323, 351(1) to 351(3), 353, 45, 61(2) - Quashing of FIR - Petitioners sought to quash FIR as the complaint was based on a commercial dispute already adjudicated by an arbitrator - Court noted that private complaint filed without requisite prior compliance is not maintainable. (Paras 1 and 22)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners are accused seeking quashing of an FIR alleging fraudulent activities and domain ownership disputes, claimed by the complainant who testified to out-of-pocket expenses for domain registration, but the petitioners argued that the domain belonged to their company as established by previous agreements. (Paras 2-5)

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the FIR was based on allegations that had already been addressed in arbitration, noting the jurisdictional compliance needed for filing such complaints, ultimately ruling the FIR as baseless for non-compliance with statutory requirements. (Paras 8-10, 22)

Issues: The key issues centered on whether the FIR pertained to a matter already settled in arbitration and the maintainability of the private complaint under the relevant sections of law. (Paras 8-9)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that private complaints filed under the Criminal Procedure Code must observe the requisite preliminary procedural compliance. Moreover, the rights to the disputed domain had been clearly delineated in prior arbitration which took precedence. (Paras 10, 22)

Result: Petition allowed; FIR quashed.

Table of Content
1. overview of offences and complainant's claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. petitioners argue about ownership and previous arbitration. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. counterarguments regarding the maintainability of the private complaint. (Para 9 , 10)
4. court's reasoning and analysis on rights and legal compliance. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. final order quashing the fir. (Para 23)

ORDER :

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.

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.

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 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 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 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 God