M/S HOST ZYRO PVT LTD vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57481
WP No. 13198 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010293292022




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

WRIT PETITION NO. 13198 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. M/S. HOST ZYRO PVT. LTD.,
(A PVT. LTD. CO.)
NO.3-84/6, OPP. ICIA BHAVAN,
ALAPE, PADIL, MANGALORE CITY - 575 007
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 2015.

2.
MR. NARESH BHAT
S/O LATE P. JAYARAM BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M/S. HOST ZYRO PVT. LTD.,
NO.3-84/6, OPP. ICAI BHAVAN,
ALAPE, PADIL, MANGALORE CITY - 575 007.

3.
SMT. SRILAXMI JAYARAM BHAT
W/O LATE P. JAYARAM BHAT
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
DIRECTOR, M/S. HOST ZYRO PVT. LTD.,
NO. 3-84/6, OPP. ICAI BHAVAN,
ALAPE, PADIL, MANGALORE CITY - 575 007.
…PETITIONERS











Digitally signed
by ASHWINI
MAYAPPA
MAVARAKAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

(BY SRI. UDAYA PRAKASH M, ADVOCATE)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57481
WP No. 13198 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010293292022


AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KANKANADY TOWN POLICE STATION,
SOUTH SUB DIVISION,
MANGALORE CITY
REPRESENTED BY H.C.G.P.

2. MR. HARISH RAO
S/O K.V. SHANBHAG,
ADULT, ACCOUNTANT,
S.L. SHET JEWELERS AND DIAMOND HOUSE
MUDUPERAR POST,
MANGALURU TALUK - 574 151.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.P. YASHODHA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. VINAYAKA KAMATH K, ADVOCATE FOR R2)


THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC. 482 OF CR.PC
PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE KANKANADY
TOWN POLICE STATION SOUTH SUB DIVISION MANGALORE
CITY IN CRIME NO.64/2022 ON THE FILE OF VIITH JMFC
COURT MANGALORE CITY D.K. REGISTERED UNDER SECTION
66C OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57481
WP No. 13198 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010293292022


THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri. Udaya Prakash M., learned counsel for the
petitioners, Smt. K.P. Yashodha, learned Additional
Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri. Vinayaka
Kamath K., learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. The petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Petitioners herein are the accused in Crime No.64/2022
registered for the offence punishable under Section 66(C) of
the Information Technology Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the
IT Act'), challenging the very registration of the case with the
following prayers:
"a) Issue Writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order or
direction etc, quashing the FIR registered by the
Kankanady Town Police Station, South Sub-
division, Mangalore City in Crime no.64/2022 on
the file of VIITH JMFC Court Mangalore City, D.K.
registered under Section 66C of the Information
Technology Act produced at ANNEXURE-A.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57481
WP No. 13198 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010293292022


b) To pass such other and further order as deemed
fit to be granted under such other circumstances
of the case."

3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of
the present petitioner as under:
3.1. A complaint came to be lodged by the second
respondent to Kankanady Police Station, Mangaluru, Dakshina
Kannada, alleging that there is a copyright registered in the
name of "S.L. SHET". They are in the business of gold and
valuable gems and stones. The registration is under the
Copyright Act, 1957 with the registration number A-
134310/2020. It is further found from the complaint averments
that on 09.06.2022, at about 11:15a.m., the complainant
noted through internet that an app wherein name of S.L. SHET
was found.

3.2. According to the complainant, no license has been
given by the complainant to the accused persons for make use
of registered trade mark with specific design and colour and the
words S.L. SHET. Petitioners said to have developed a mobile
application and in such application, the logo with specific colour
and design registered by the complainant under the Copyright

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57481
WP No. 13198 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010293292022


Act has been used above S.L. SHET Diamond House, whereby
there is an infringement of copyright. Once said application is
opened, the application would direct the business of S.L.
Diamond House, which is a separate concern than the
complainant is concern and whereby there is an infringement of
copyright.

3.3. Based on the said complaint, police registered the
case for the offence punishable under Section 66(C) of the IT
Act as aforesaid and are investigating the matter.

3.4. Petitioners herein have questioned the very
registration of the complaint on the following grounds.

4. Shri Udaya Prakash M., learned counsel for the
petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would
contend that entire reading of the complaint itself would not
make out any ingredient whatsoever much less all ingredients
to attract the offence under Section 66(C) of the IT Act.
Therefore, very registration of the case by the Kankanady
Police itself has resulted in abuse of process of law.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57481
WP No. 13198 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010293292022


5. He would further contend that even assuming that
there is an infringement of the copyright, petitioners being only
the developers of the mobile application, as is found in ink page
No.215 of the statement of objections filed by the second
respondent, they cannot be held responsible for the alleged
offence and it is their client, who directed them to manufacture
the 'app' are required to be proceeded for the requisite offences
by the police and thus sought for quashing of the complaint qua
the petitioners.

6. Per contra Smt. K.P. Yashoda, learned Additional
Government Advocate would contend that registration of the
case under Section 66 of the IT Act would not ipso facto debar
the police from investigating the matter for any other offences,
as well at the time of filing the charge sheet and thus sought
for dismissal of the petition.

7. Sri. Vinayaka Kamath K., learned counsel for the
second respondent would adopt the arguments of learned
Additional Government Advocate and would further contend
that the very use of logo by the petitioners herein though

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57481
WP No. 13198 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010293292022


supplied by the clients of the petitioners herein would not
rescue the criminality of the petitioners in making use of the
logo, which is copyright protected and thus sought for dismissal
of the petition.

8. He would invite the attention of the Court to legal
notice issued vide Annexures 2(A) and 2(E) marked at page
Nos.28 and 58. He would further contend that despite notifying
the petitioners herein as to the registration of the logo and
desist from making use of it, petitioners continued to infringe
the copyright and therefore, sought for dismissal of the
petition.

9. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the
parties, it is just and necessary for this Court to call out Section
66(C) of the IT Act, which reads as under:
" 66C. Punishment for identity theft. -
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."

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57481
WP No. 13198 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010293292022


10. On careful reading of the above provision, it is
crystal clear that there must be dishonest and fraudulent
intention in misusing the electronic signature, password or any
other unique identification feature of any other person. Section
66 of the IT Act deals with the heading computer related
offences. Section 66(C) of the IT Act deals with the heading
punishment for identity theft.

11. In the case on hand, there is no allegation as to the
misuse of electronic signature or password or unique
identification feature of the complainant by the petitioners
herein.

12. As such, per se Section 66(C) of the IT Act would
not be applicable to the case on hand. Learned counsel for the
respondent placed on record the judgment of the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi in the case of PUMA SE Vs. INDIAMART
INTERMESH LTD. reported in 2024 (308) DLT 260 for the
purpose of arguing that petitioners cannot claim immunity
under Section 79 of the IT Act.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57481
WP No. 13198 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010293292022


13. In the first place, such an argument of respondent
No.2 cannot be countenanced in law inasmuch as Section 66(C)
of the IT Act itself is not attracted in the case on hand.
Therefore, application of Section 79 of the IT Act would not
arise.

14. Moreover, if any other offence has occurred, it
would only be against the person, who is making benefit of the
alleged infringement. If it is so, it is S.L. SHET Diamond House,
who is the client of the petitioners, who is responsible for the
same.

15. Jurisdictional Police are at liberty to investigate the
matter insofar as 'S.L. SHET Diamond House' and take action in
accordance with law, if permitted.

16. Reserving such liberty, qua the petitioners, no
offence can be made out having regard to the fact that they are
only developers of the mobile application and no dishonest
intention or fraudulent intention is forthcoming from the
complainant averments as against the petitioners.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57481
WP No. 13198 of 2022


CNR: KAHC010293292022


17. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

(ii) FIR registered in crime No.64/2022 by
Kankanady Town Police Station on the file of VII
JMFC Court, Mangalore City, Dakshina Kannada

stands quashed qua the petitioners.



Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE





JY
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13