Allowed

Mr. Doddaballapur Prasanna Achutarao v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2023CRL.P/351/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed an FIR registered under Section 66(c) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Court held that merely listing a diagnostic center on a platform without fraudulent intent did not constitute the offense, and a non-executive director lacked vicarious liability.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR in crime No.1289/2020 registered by West CEN crime police station, Bengaluru city stands quashed; all pending applications disposed of.

Mr. Doddaballapur Prasanna Achutarao… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:34722 CRL.P No. 351 of 2021 C/W WP No. 1377 of 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 351 OF 2021 C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 1377 OF 2021 (GM-RES) IN CRL.P NO. 351/2021

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. DODDABALLAPUR PRASANNA ACHUTARAO, S/O MR. D. S. ACHUTARAO, AGD ABOUT 72 YEARS, AND RESIDING AT 'CASA LAGUNA', NO.6/3, GANGADHAR CHETTY ROAD, ULSOOR, BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560 042, INDIA.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SREENIVASA RAGHAVAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. LOMESH KIRAN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, C. E. N. POLICE STATION, WEST DIVISION, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 079, INDIA.

¶15

M/S. PADMASHREE DIAGNOSTICS, THROUGH DR. SUMA H. R, HAVING OFFICE AT NO.97, SERVICE ROAD, M. C. LAYOUT, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:34722 CRL.P No. 351 of 2021 C/W WP No. 1377 of 2021

¶18

CHORD ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 040, INDIA.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. WAHEEDA M. M, HCGP FOR R1; MS. KRUTIKA RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO 1. QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 11.12.2020 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BEFORE THE C.E.N P.S., WEST DIVISION BENGALURU (KARNATAKA INDIA) ANNEXRUE-A.

¶21

IN WP NO. 1377/2021

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

MANSI GANDHI,

¶24

DIRECTOR OF SIMPLIFY WELLNESS INDIA PVT. LTD., DAUGHTER OF AJAY GANDHI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, AT DOCTOR C 8-2-269/22 NAVODAYA COLONY ROAD, NO.2, BANJARA H ILLS, HYDERABAD - 500 034.

¶25

NEEHAR REDDY CHERABUDDI, DIRECTOR OF SIMPLIFY WELLNESS INDIA PVT. LTD., SON OF DAYAKAR REDDY CHERABUDDI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, AT DOCTOR C 8-2-269/22, NAVODAYA COLONY ROAD, NO.2, BANJARA H ILLS, HYDERABAD - 500 034.

¶26

…PETITIONERS

¶27

(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. S. SUSHANT VENKATESH PAI, ADVOCATE)

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:34722 CRL.P No. 351 of 2021 C/W WP No. 1377 of 2021

¶29

AND:

¶30

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY WEST CEN CRIME POLICE STATION/CEN POLICE STATION, WEST DIVISION, BENGALURU, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND INVESTIGATING OFFICER.

¶31

DR. SUMA H. R, WIFE OF LOMESH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, ADMINISTRATOR AND CONSULTANT BIO CHEMIST AT PADMASHREE DIAGNOSTICS, NO.97, 17TH CROSS, M. C. LAYOUT, NEAR HOSAHALLI METRO STATION, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. WAHEEDA M. M, HCGP FOR R1; MS. KRUTIKA RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶34

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CRIME NO.1289/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU AND BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.12.2020 PASSED IN CRIME NO.1289/2020 BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,

¶35

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR DICTATION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:34722 CRL.P No. 351 of 2021 C/W WP No. 1377 of 2021

¶37

ORDER

¶38

Since these petitions are filed challenging the registration of the very same FIR in crime No.1289/2020, by the West CEN crime police station, Bengaluru city, they are taken up together and disposed of by common order.

¶39

Respondent No.2 lodged the FIR stating that they are running a diagnostic center in the name of Padmashree Diagnostics, and on the web site www.doctors.in, their diagnostic center was listed on the platform without taking permission, and despite requests to remove the same, the petitioners did not accede to their request. It was further alleged that though the petitioners are listing platforms, they don't have the right to move their patients to another diagnostic center. The police registered the FIR for the offence punishable under Section 66(c) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, 'Act'). Taking exception to the same, these petitions are filed.

¶40

Sri. Udaya Holla, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.1377/2021, submits that the allegations made in the FIR, even accepted on the face of it, do not satisfy the essential elements to constitute the commission of an offence under Section 66(c) of the Act. He further submits that the petitioner's company provides

¶41

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:34722 CRL.P No. 351 of 2021 C/W WP No. 1377 of 2021

¶42

information about the accredited diagnostic centers providing services on a common platform, i.e., its website. Therefore, the continuation of the investigation will be an abuse of process of law.

¶43

Sri. Sreenivasa Raghavan, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.351/2021 submits that the petitioner is only a non executive director, and, was not in charge of or involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company, so as to hold him vicariously guilty along with the company. Therefore, the investigation of the offences alleged against him will be an abuse of process of law.

¶44

Learned counsel for respondent No.2/informant submits that the petitioners, without permission, have listed the diagnostic clinics belonging to them on a public platform with the intention of moving its customers to other diagnostic clinics, which constitutes an offence punishable under Section 66(c) of the Act.

¶45

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

¶46

The petitioners have annexed a copy of the information of the Padmashree Diagnostics Centre

¶47

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:34722 CRL.P No. 351 of 2021 C/W WP No. 1377 of 2021

¶48

belonging to respondent No.2 published on its platform, which reads thus:

¶49

Note: Padmashree Diagnostics is not a partner nor associated with DoctorC. The cashback offers are provided by DoctorC.

¶50

Ad.doctorc.in/padmashree/diagnost ics	Ad.doctorc.in/padmashree/diagnost ics
Padmashree Diagnostics	Info, Offers, Phone Nos
Listing into of Padmashree Diagnostics & 200+ Labs. Padmashree is not a partner of DoctorC. DoctorC provides pricing, quality, ratings, reviews of diagnostic centers Padmashree-Ultrasound Padmashree-Lab Tests Call DrC-Number Below	Listing into of Padmashree Diagnostics & 200+ Labs. Padmashree is not a partner of DoctorC. Save upto 30% on diagnostics in Blr by using Doctorc- MRI, CT, Ultrasound, Blood Test etc. Padmashree-Ultrasound
Call 08047186411	Padmashree-Lab Tests Call DrC-Number Below Call 08047186411

¶51

Section 66(c) of the Act deals with punishment for identity theft, and it states that whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly make use of the electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine with may extend to rupees one lakh. In the instant case, the petitioners have only provided the information of the diagnostic center

¶52

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:34722 CRL.P No. 351 of 2021 C/W WP No. 1377 of 2021

¶53

belonging to respondent No.2/informant to the public at large, and there was no fraudulent or dishonest intention to make use of the listing, and it has not resulted in causing any loss to the diagnostic center so as to constitute the commission of an offense under Section 66(c) of the Act.

¶54

In the note appended to the information, it is specifically stated that the petitioner is not a partner of the diagnostic center belonging to respondent No.2/informant and the cash back offer is provided by the petitioners. Therefore, the contention of the respondent No.2/informant that petitioners have falsely misrepresented to the public that a cashback offer will be provided by the diagnostic center in question is not acceptable. Therefore, the listing of the diagnostic center on the platform of the petitioner was not with an intention to make wrongful loss to the Informant and wrongful gain to the Petitioner- Company. Therefore, essential elements to constitute the commission of the aforesaid offence are conspicuously absent, and the continuation of the investigation will be an abuse of process of law.

¶55

The Petitioner in Crl.P.No.351/2021 is a non executive director of the company. Section 85 of the Information Technology Act deals with the offences by companies, and states that, if any, contravention under

¶56

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:34722 CRL.P No. 351 of 2021 C/W WP No. 1377 of 2021

¶57

the act is committed by a company, every person responsible, who was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of the business shall be guilty of the contravention along with the company. In the impugned FIR, there is no allegation that the Petitioners was in charge and responsible for conduct of the business of the company or that the acts of the company had occurred within the knowledge of the non-executive director and with his consent and connivance. Therefore, the non executive director cannot be held vicariously guilty along with the company in the absence of requirements enumerated in Section 85 of the Act.

¶58

11. Accordingly, the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

i. The petitions are allowed;

¶61

ii. The impugned FIR in crime No.1289/2020, registered by West CEN crime police station, Bengaluru city stands quashed;

¶62

All pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

HDK

Mr. Doddaballapur Prasanna Achutarao v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Doddaballapur Prasanna Achutarao v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudheesh R Vs the Station House Officer

Shri S G Basavaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Naval Kishore Maloo Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Shivakumar. R Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Shilpashree Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr B v Deepak Vs Smt R Ramya