Copyright infringement alone does not constitute identity theft under Section 66C of the IT Act.

Respondent No. 2, associated with S.L. Shet Diamond House, complained that the petitioners’ mobile application displayed the complainant’s registered “S.L. SHET” logo without permission, allegedly infringing copyright.

The police registered Crime No. 64/2022 under Section 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”).

The petitioners, who said they had developed the application for a client, sought quashing of the FIR, contending that the complaint did not disclose the ingredients of Section 66C and that they lacked dishonest or fraudulent intent.

Section 66C of the IT Act criminalises the fraudulent or dishonest use of another person’s electronic signature, password, or other unique identification feature; the provision requires such use and the requisite fraudulent or dishonest intent.

The Court considered the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

It noted the respondent’s reliance on PUMA SE v. IndiaMART InterMESH Ltd., 2024 (308) DLT 260, concerning Section 79 of the IT Act, but held that Section 79 did not arise for consideration because Section 66C was not attracted on the complaint’s allegations.

The complaint alleged unauthorised use of a logo and words in the mobile application, but did not allege that the petitioners fraudulently or dishonestly used the complainant’s electronic signature, password, or other unique identification feature.

The Court therefore found that the essential elements of Section 66C were absent.

It also accepted that the petitioners were application developers and found no dishonest or fraudulent intention attributable to them in the complaint.

The Court left open investigation into the client, S.L. Shet Diamond House, and any action permitted by law.

It reserved liberty to the jurisdictional police to investigate S.L. Shet Diamond House and proceed in accordance with law, if permitted.