MR. PRAVEEN KUMAR vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56048
CRL.P No. 840 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010034682025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 840 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) /

528(BNSS)-)

BETWEEN:

1. MR. PRAVEEN KUMAR
SON OF SRI MADHUKAR SHYAM GHOSH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

2. MRS RASHMI GOSH
WIFE OF SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

BOTH RESIDING AT NO. 24 FLAT NO. A-2
ST
1 CROSS, ABBHIYA REDDY LAYOUT
NEAR SBI, KHAGGDASPURA
C V RAMAN NAGAR
BENGALURU 560093


…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PARASHURAM A L., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POLICE STATION
REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU 560001

2. M/S MAINTEC TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD.,
COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO. 3M-215 EAST TO NGEF,











Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56048
CRL.P No. 840 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010034682025


OUTER RING ROAD
KASTURI NAGAR
BENGALURU 560043

REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE.

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP FOR R1;
R2-SERVED)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH COMPLAINT DATED 12.01.2021
FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN PCR 3591/2021 PENDING BEFORE
THE HONBLE IV ADDL. CMM, BENGALURU CITY WHEREIN THE
PETITIONER ARE ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1 AND 3 FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 120, 405, 406, 415, 417, 418, 420 OF THE IPC,
1860, ANNEXURE B AND ETC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs;
a. Quash complaint dated 12.01.2021 filed by
respondent no.2 in PCR 3591/2021 pending before
the Honble IV Addl. CMM, Bengaluru City wherein
the petitioner are arrayed as accused no.1 and 3
for the offences p/u/s 120, 405, 406, 415, 417,
418, 420 of the IPC, 1860, Annexure B;

b. Quash fir in Crime No.0343/2024 registered by
the respondent no.1 Ramamurthy Nagar PS, police
on the file of the Honble IV Addl. CMM, Bengaluru
City wherein the petitioners are arrayed as accused
no.1 and 3 for the offences p/u/s 120, 405, 406,
415, 417, 418, 420 of the IPC, 1860 (Annexure A).

Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56048
CRL.P No. 840 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010034682025


c. Grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court
deems fit to meet the ends of justice.


2. Respondent No. 2 filed a private complaint under
Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging
commission of offences punishable under Sections 120,
405, 406, 415, 417, 418 and 420 of the Indian Penal
Code. After recording the sworn statement, the matter
was referred to the Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station
for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure on 02.04.2024. Pursuant thereto,
the Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station registered FIR in
Crime No. 343/2024 on 15.06.2024 for the aforesaid
offences. The petitioners are before this Court
challenging the registration of the said FIR.


3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner No. 1 was an employee of respondent No. 2
and that, at the highest, the dispute between the
parties is one arising out of an employment contract, to
which a criminal colour could not have been imparted.
He contends that even if the allegations of respondent
No. 2 regarding moonlighting by petitioner No. 1 were
accepted in their entirety, the same could, at best,
have resulted in termination of his employment and
could not have furnished a basis for initiating criminal
proceedings.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56048
CRL.P No. 840 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010034682025




4. Learned counsel further submits that the complaint
rests primarily on an undated screenshot of an email.
According to him, the email was sent after the
termination of the employment of petitioner No. 1 on
05.06.2020 and, therefore, any activity undertaken by
petitioner No. 1 after the termination of his
employment could not constitute the offences alleged.
He lastly contends that respondent No. 2 was at liberty
to pursue such remedies as might be available in
respect of the contractual dispute, but the institution of
a criminal complaint in the circumstances amounts to
an abuse of the process of law.


5. Heard Sri Parashuram A. L., learned counsel for the
petitioners. Respondent No. 2, though served, has
chosen not to enter appearance.


A perusal of the complaint indicates that petitioner No.
6.
1 has been arrayed as accused No. 1 and petitioner No.
2 as accused No. 3. Two entities, namely, M/s. Dualapp
Technologies Private Limited and Lookup IT Solutions,
have been arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 5,
respectively. Another person, stated to be a director of
accused No. 2, has been arrayed as accused No. 4.

Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56048
CRL.P No. 840 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010034682025



7. The allegations in the complaint are that accused No. 1
was employed by respondent No. 2 as a software
development consultant on 17.10.2017 and entered
into a confidentiality agreement on 14.05.2018,
undertaking to abide by the company's rules and
regulations. He was subsequently offered permanent
employment as Business Development and
Development Delivery Manager – Projects at
Bengaluru, with an annual package of Rs. 12,00,000/-
and a performance bonus of Rs. 3,00,000/-.


8. According to the complaint, accused No. 1 initially
performed his duties satisfactorily. However, during
2019, his performance allegedly deteriorated
considerably. Upon enquiry, respondent No. 2
purportedly discovered that accused No. 1 was
moonlighting for a company established by accused No.
3, who is none other than his wife, namely, M/s.
Dualapp Technologies Private Limited. Lookup IT
Solutions is alleged to be a division of the said
company. These entities have been arrayed as accused
Nos. 2 and 5, respectively.


9. It is further alleged that accused No. 1, by virtue of his
access to important and high-profile clients of
respondent No. 2, entered into an unlawful
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56048
CRL.P No. 840 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010034682025


arrangement and conspired with the other accused,
with the deliberate intention of cheating respondent
No. 2 by diverting its clients to Dualapp Technologies
Private Limited. He is also alleged to have shared
confidential customer details and information
concerning the technology employed by respondent No.
2 with the said company. The complaint specifically
alleges that several valuable clients of respondent No.
2 were diverted as a result of these acts, causing an
alleged loss of Rs. 54,00,000/-.


10. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the
aforesaid amount of Rs. 54,00,000/- has been
quantified on the basis of the salary paid to accused
No. 1. However, the allegation in the complaint is not
confined to the payment of salary. It is also alleged
that, while receiving such salary, accused No. 1 was
not discharging his duties for respondent No. 2 but was
instead carrying out work for Dualapp Technologies
Private Limited, owned by his wife, and diverting
customers to that company. The precise basis and
extent of the alleged loss would be matters for
investigation.


11. The complaint further states that the services of
accused No. 1 were terminated on 05.06.2020,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56048
CRL.P No. 840 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010034682025


following his alleged confession to the illegal and
fraudulent acts. Respondent No. 2 is stated to have
lodged a complaint with the Ramamurthy Nagar Police
Station on the same date, pursuant to which a non-
cognizable report (NCR) was registered, but no further
action was taken. Subsequently, accused No. 1
initiated proceedings before the Labour Court. Learned
counsel for the petitioners, therefore, contends that the
present private complaint is an afterthought and a
counterblast to the proceedings initiated before the
Labour Court.


12. The said contention cannot be accepted at this stage.
The material placed before this Court indicates that
respondent No. 2 had approached the police on
05.06.2020, the very date on which the services of
accused No. 1 were terminated, and that an NCR was
registered. The proceedings before the Labour Court
were initiated subsequently. The private complaint is
stated to have been filed after the police complaint did
not result in further action. In these circumstances, the
contention that the private complaint is merely an
afterthought or a counterblast to the proceedings
before the Labour Court cannot, at this stage, be
accepted.

Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56048
CRL.P No. 840 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010034682025



13. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that
there is no contractual relationship or privity of
contract between accused No. 2 and respondent No. 2
and, on that basis, seeks quashing of the proceedings
against accused No. 2. This submission cannot be
accepted merely on the ground that there is no privity
of contract between the said accused and respondent
No. 2. The complaint alleges that the company
benefited from the acts attributed to accused No. 1 and
that the accused persons acted in concert pursuant to a
conspiracy. The allegations are thus not confined to the
breach of a contractual obligation. Whether the
ingredients of the offences alleged are established
against each of the accused is a matter to be examined
in accordance with law. The absence of a direct
contractual relationship, by itself, does not warrant
quashing of the proceedings at this stage.


14. The allegations made against the petitioners are
serious in nature. It is alleged that accused No. 3, the
wife of accused No. 1, established Dualapp
Technologies Private Limited and that accused No. 1,
by exploiting his position and access to the clients of
respondent No. 2, diverted clients to the said company
and shared confidential information and technology
belonging to respondent No. 2. The complaint further
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56048
CRL.P No. 840 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010034682025


alleges that these acts were committed pursuant to a
conspiracy and caused financial loss to respondent No.
2.


15. At this stage, the allegations require investigation.
Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the
material referred to in the complaint, it cannot be
concluded that the complaint discloses no offence or
that the continuation of the proceedings would, on that
ground alone, amount to an abuse of the process of
law.


In that view of the matter, no grounds being made out,
16.
dismissed
petition stands .

Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru

Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE




PRS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10