An individual cannot be proceeded against in criminal proceedings for actions attributed to a company unless the company itself is arraigned as an accused.

Dig itally

signed by

SANJEEVINI J

KARISHETTY

Location: High

Court of

Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.72/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NARASIMHARAJAPURA, CHIKKAMAGALURU REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 37, 63, 65, 69 OF COPY RIGHTS ACT, 1957 AND SECTIONS 379, 120B(2), 417, 420 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AND ALSO UNDER 66-C, 66D, 84B OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2008 AS PER ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel Sri. Sachin B.S., appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Vinay Mahadevaiah, the learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.

2. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following prayers:

"a. Quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.72/2018 pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Narasimharajapura, Chikkamagaluru registered for the offence punishable under Section 37 , 63, 65, 69 of Copy rights Act, 1957 and Section 37 9, 120B(2), 417, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under 66-C, 66D, 84B of Information Technology Act, 2008 as per ANNEXURE-A in so far as the Petitioner is concerned;

a. To Grant any such other relief as the Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant, in the ends of equity and justice "

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.23341/2019 disposed on 17.07.2025, wherein it has held as follows:

"Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.4 has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against him in CC.No.72/2018 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Narasimharajapura, Chikkamagaluru District, for the offences punishable and Section 66C, 66D and 84B of Information Technology Act, 2008 and Sections 379, 120-B (2), 417, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

2. In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that there is no connection between the defacto complainant and the complaint. In the complaint, name of petitioner is not forthcoming. Only in the charge sheet his name is included with malafide intention. While the allegations that the agreement was between the complainant company and accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 and 3 are employees of accused No.1, there is no connection whatsoever between the petitioner and the alleged crime. The complaint may be utmost considered as a consumer grievance and it is being given a colour of criminal case after lapse of five years. The allegations made in the complaint does not attract the provisions for which cases registered and charge sheet is filed, continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and pray to quash the same.

3. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following decisions;

i) Mr. Rohit Jawa Vs. State of Karnataka and another (Rohit Jawa) [Crl.P.No.8536/2023 dated 03.07.2025]

ii) Sanjay Dutt and others Vs. The State of Haryana and another (Sunjay Dutt) [Crl.A.No.11/2025, dated 02.01.2025]

4. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent No.2 and learned HCGP representing respondent No.1/State submit that accuse