IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 430 OF 2025

1. Rajesh Khakar Indian Inhabitant, Age 55 years, Residing at: A4, Tarapore Garden, NKDAA IKIRLI A TAD ASE Oshiwara, Lokhandwala, DNDD12 i Aa IgK :tR 2 i e It 7 A: Ta : D2 lA 20 y E K 2 s + A 5 ig . I 00 Ln 55 Ae 3. dS 00 9 by Andheri West, Mumbai-400 053

2. Sameer Merchant Indian Inhabitant, Age 42 years, Residing at: B1 Wing, Flat No. 401, Serenity Complex Oshiwara, Mumbai-400 053

3. Dharmesh Dattani Indian Inhabitant, Age 48 years, Residing at: 1302, Krishna Heritage, M.G. Road, Mumbai-400 067. … Petitioners.

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Kashigaon Police Station Silver Sarita, Vinay Nagar, Kashigaon, Mira Road (E), Thane-401 107.

2. Yogesh Dattatray Bagul

15, 16, Gokul Bungalow, Radha Nagari, Near ABB Circle, Mahatma Nagar, Nashik-422 008.

3. The Commissioner of Police Mira-Bhayander, Vasai-Virar

9, Gaurav Galaxy, Mira Road East, Mira Bhayander - 401 107. … Respondents Mr. Manoj S. Mohite, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Amit Jajoo a/w Dr.

Vedant Chhajed a/w Mr. Aman Marwah i/b IndusLaw for Petitioners.

Ms. S.S. Kaushik, APP for Respondent State.

Mr. Aditya Shamsunder Chandak a/w Ms. Niraja Joshi i/b. Ms. Indrayani Patani, for Respondent No. 2.

PSI Kiran Baghdane, Kashigaon Police Station.

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 9^TH APRIL, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 9TH MAY, 2025 JUDGMENT (PER ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. By the present petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), Petitioners seek quashing of the FIR bearing No.0339 of 2024 dated 17.10.2024 registered by the Kashigaon Police Station, Thane, (for short “Impugned FIR”), under Section 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”).

3. Impugned FIR registered by the Respondent No.1- Kashigaon Police Station, refers to the Petitioners as Accused and the Respondent No. 2 as the Complainant / Informant.

Case of the Petitioners :-

4. Petitioners are Directors of Laxmi Dental Limited (for short “the Company”), engaged in the business of providing dental solutions, services and in creation of dental prosthetics. The Company in order to expand its operation, to carry out extensive research and development work for the dental products, etc., had established a division by name ‘Vedia Solutions’.

5. Respondent No.2 was associated with the Company for providing research and development services since the month of October 2017. Scope of service of the Respondent No.2, as also the other rights with respect to intellectual property, confidential information, trade secrets and other proprietary information of the Company, are recorded in an agreement dated 24.05.2019, executed by and between the Company and the Respondent No.2. In terms of the said agreement dated 24.05.2019, the Respondent No.2 was entitled to share in the profits of the ‘Vedia Solutions’ up to 45% inclusive of fixed monthly compensation. All proceeds and results of service rendered by the Respondent No.2 to the Company were deemed to be “work made for hire” by the Respondent No.2. Said agreement dated 24.05.2019 stipulated restrictive covenants such as confidentiality, non-compete and non-solicitation, as a result of which, the Respondent No.2 was required to maintain the highest standard of ethical, moral and professional manner while performing his service. Respondent No.2 was required to refrain from any conduct which would tend to disparage the Company.

6. In accordance with the terms of the agreement dated 24.05.2019, Respondent No.2 along with his father assigned all their rights in the trademark / brand name and/or domain name of “TAGLUS” and “UL ALIGN” including their domain name, which was used for service deliverables by the Company. Assignment of the said rights were recorded under an Intellectual P