Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J
MR. RAHUL PANDYA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and parties involved (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background of the employment and allegations (Para 3 , 7) |
| 3. parties' arguments regarding the nature of the dispute (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court's observations on the merit of allegations (Para 6 , 10) |
| 5. legal reasoning on breach of contract and criminal intent (Para 11) |
| 6. final order for quashing the fir (Para 12 , 13) |
CAV ORDER
The petitioner/accused is knocking at the doors of this Court in the subject petition calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.1145 of 2020 for offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC and Sections 66C, 66D and 72A of the Information Technology Act , 2000 (‘the Act’ for short).
2. Heard Sri C.S.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri K. Raghavendra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
The 2nd respondent/Samsung R & D Institute India-Bangalore Private Limited (‘the Company’ for short) is the complainant. The petitioner on completion of his Master’s in Engineering from Indian Institute of Te
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
