The High Court · 2025

be.pleased to quash the proceedings in FIR No.235 of zo2s before cyber crime Police station, Hyderabad and all consequential proceedings in relation thereto. l.A.Nos.2 AND 3 oF 2025 l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 359(2) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to permit the Petitioners and the 2nd respondent to rec-ord the terms of compromise/settlement for quashing the proceedings in FIR No.235 ol 2025 before cyber crime Police Station, Hyderabad and all consequent proceedings thereto. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2025 Between: n i lndia Private Limited, Having its reqistered office at H.no. 8-3- f -u11r1e_ev_a 169/637, Dattatreya Nagar, Sanjeev Reddl Naqir, Hyderabad. Ameeroet. I elangana, lndia, 500038 Represented by Authiorisecl Representative ivrr.' Seepana Venkata Ramana ...Petitioner/Respondent No.2/Defacto Complainant AND 1 2 3 4 5 Prasad sunil Gawankar, s/o sunil Devchand Gawankar Aqed.36. occuoation. p.ervic.e. Lead Key Account Management, O (1) lndia priiate Li;it;-fi;;i;; hrs^ address at. 2512, Gomati Niwas padwai Nagar, Wagle Estate Thanel 400604 Alisha Anant Kalkhair, D/o Anant Rangnath Kalkhair Aqed. 37, Occupation. servrce. Associate catalog Management, o (1) India prlvate Limited Havino ner address at. A-9, Chinal Buitding Lok_Udyan Co_operative housing Nea"r Sarvoday Mall, Kalyan(W), pin Code:42.1301 ' sushant Kumar, S/o shailendra Kumar Aged.38, occupation. service Director Py_rl!::. Development, O (!. tlqr.a p-riiate timiteo 'niring-n-is i"*"#;i Itdlg:: at Yuwpi Enctav^e, Ftat No 308, Dimna Road, JJmshebpur, East srngnDhum, Jharkhand 832 012 Pratik Ravindranath Kamat, S/o Ravindranath Raghunath Kamath Aged. 35, occupation. Service senior rr/anager Business "Deveropment. o rli-[niii -L; 1t.1y319,_L,Fll"d H.a.ving his_add1gs^5 at N-o. 695/4, r_o'nrirriva b_id; Uampata L;otony, Maramar, Panaji, Goa_403 001 The State of Telanoana Rep. by its public prosecutor, Through SHO, Cyber Crime Police Statio"n. HyderabaS. ...Respondents/Petitioners/Accused No.4 to 7 ...Respondent No.1/Complainant Petition under section 359(2) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petifion, the High corrt mry be pleased to permit the petitioners and the 2nd respondent to record the terms of compromise/settlement for quashing the proceedings in FIR No'23 before Cyber Crime Police"StJti*"nio"'"bad and all consequent pr 5 of 2025 oceedings thereto. "rPon This Petition coming on for Grounds of Criminal Petition Sri D Narendar Naik and Ms Prana Jithender Rao Veeramalla' Add ResPondent No.1 and of Sri Varun The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of hearing the arguments of tfrifaruturi, Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri "nO itional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Ambati, Advocate for lhe Respondent No 2 I 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI LA.Nos.2 AND 3 OF 2025 ln/And CRIMINAL PETITION No.6019 OF 2025 COMMON ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNSS'), seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No. 235 of 2025 of Cyber Crimes Police Station, Hyderabad.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.4 to 7 in the Crime registered for the offences punishable under Sections 66-C and 66-D of the lnformation Technology Act, 2000, Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short1he BNS').

3. Heard Mr. D.Narendar Naik and Ms.Pranathi Karuturi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representlng respondent No.1 -State and Mr. Varun Ambati, learned counsel for responde nt No.2tde-facto complainant

4. Pending this petition, the parties have entered into the compromise and, accordingly, they moved l.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 with the prayer to them to enter into compromise and by recording the setflement to ^permit 7 lA.Not 2 a ) of2025 in/and Cr/.P.No. 601 9 bf 2025 quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos 4to7in Crime No. 235 of 2025.

5. This court yrde orders dated29.04.2025 referred the parties to the Hlgh court Legal services committee for identification and to verify the voluntariness in arriving the settlement. The secretary, High court Legal services committee, has submitted report dated 01 .05.2025 stating that the parties were identified by their respective counsel and also on verification of Aadhar cards/ldentity cards and the enquiries revealed that the parties have willfully and without coercion entered into settlement/comPromise. 6 I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the materials on record.

7. The police report is filed by the de facto complainanUCompany alleging unauthorized use of its brand name 'Punarjeevani' their product images and website content by scammers' whereby the accused are exploiting their intellectual property to mislead the public and collect sensitive personal information causing harm to their brand'

8. Having regard to the nature of offences and taking into account the amicable settlement between the parties and to restore peace among them, in the light of the dictums in Gian Singh v. Stafe of Puniab and r. .1 3 i\ 1Ky' L 1.)',,t 2 erid ) oj 202i in/and Cr/.Pit o. 60/ 9 o-1 202; anotherl and Anil Mishra % state of lJ.P.2; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and othersj and Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others y, state of Gujarat and another4 this court is of the considered view that quashment of the impugned proceedings in view of the settlement by exercising jurisdiction under Section4S2Cr.PC.IS2SofBNSS,2023,wouldbeintheinterestof justice.

9. Accordingly, l.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 ate allowed' Consequently' all proceedings in crime No. 235 of 2025 of cyber crimes Police station, Hyderabad,areherebyquashedagainstthepetitioners/accusedNos' 4to7

10. ln the above terms, the Criminal Petition is allowed' Pendilg miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/- A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ \ SECTTON OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1 2 3 4 5 6 The Xll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad The Station House Officer, Cyber Crime Police Station, Hyderabad (Hyderabad) Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri D Narendar Naik, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Varun Ambati, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies o ABK/PSL Along with a copy of Joint Memo of Compromise :r'r'r .r.-. rixr$. :; " HIGH COURT DATED: 3110712025 :--' t COMMON ORDER l.A.Nos.2 AND 3 OF 202 5 ln/And CRLP.No.6019 ol 2025 7:-: '/./.i 1HE sr4ii 2 2 Atl0 206 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION AND l.A.Nos.2 AND 3 OF 2025 9t _, ..- t.[ i

4. Pratik Ravindranath Kamat Sio Ravindrarath Kamat Aged: 35, OccuPation: Service Senior Manager - Business Development, O (i) India Private Limited Having his address at: No. 695/ 4, F-6, Akshaya, B-18, La CamPala ColonY, Miramar, Panaji, Goa - 403 001 .. Petitioners/Accused No.4 to 7 .. . Respondent.No. 1 /Complainant And 1) The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Through SHO, Cyber Crime Police Station, Hyderabad. 2) Punarjeevani India Private Limited I{aving its registered office at H:no. 8-3- 1 69i637, Dattatreya Nagar, Sanjeev ReddY Nagar, HYderabad, Ameerpet,'lelangana, India, 500038 Represented by Authorised Signatory Mr. Seepana Venkata Ramana ...Respondent No.2/Defacto Complainant JOINT MEMO 1) It is submitted that Respondent No' 2 ("De-facto Complainant") had hled a Complaint before Cyber Crimes Station, Hyderabad alleging unauthorized use of their brand name Punarjecvani, their Product image and website content by alleged scammers.Itisfurtherallegedthatcerlainindividualswereexploitingtheirintellectual prope(y to mislead the public and collect sensitive personal information causing harm .., to theii-brand and consumers. ,1 -"! :- , 'r:r'., :, .: _,'":.- -.::) \tl t: ll rl.,-lj i.'r'q.'.. t.,,.1ii1:i :. :.,? :...' ' t:,. ii|. ;. ., .:}}.,1,.-'1, C DI I. u6,,ffi ,),p- o # '. )\ t 2) It is alleged thal scammers were using their brand name and contact details to sell counterfeit producLs severely urdermining the trust they have built amongst their customers. 3) It is alleged that lake products are listed on platforms such as Roposo Clout for dropshipping. It is alleged rhat lvithout valid manufacturing details and licenses, the product being sold is causing significant health risks to consumers. 4) It is alleged that they have received thousands of complaints from their customers who were deceived by the fraudulent adveftisements. Further, it is alleged that customers had reported receiving iake products and being asked for one-time passwords (OTPs) ir scam calls and facing financial losses. 5) It is alleged that the public's r.rust in thcir brand was severell. impacted due to thc scam ald have given a list of costumers scanmed. 6) It is submitted that the cyber crimes p.S. registered abovementioned crime for alleged offences under Sections 66-c, 66-D c.f Information Technology Act, 2000 rcad with Sections 318 (4), 319 (2),336 (3), 3j8 and j40 (2) of BNS. Thereafter, the Petitioners herein have been arrayed as Accused Nos. 4 to 7 in the abovemcntioned FIR. 7) It is submitted that Petitioners herein work for o (l) India private Limited which operates an e-commerce marketplace platform under the namc of ,.Roposo Clout,, and "Shop i01" which acts as an intermediary between suppliers and dropshippers. 8) It is submitted that o (1) India Private Limited and its employees and/ or its parent company/ afhliate/ group companies do not have any involvement or liability for the alleged infringement as claimed by Respondent No. 2 and maintains that its platform acts ps an ifuermediary under applicable law. By way of further clarity, the petitioners herein being ei-nployees of o (1) India private Limited also have no involvement or liability for alleged infriirgemenr :1 , --r. i:: I ^k$ I Qs* U, M kY {@ lL 9) In view of the aforesaid, the parties have amicably settled the disputes, and the Respondent No.2 has decided not to pursue FIR No. 235 of 2025 registered by Cyber Crimes Police Station, Hyderabad against the Petitioners herein and O (1) India Private Limited and or its employees and/ or its parent/ affiiate/ group companies (including but not limited to Glance Digital Experience Private Limiled). \ 10) The Respondent No- 2, Petitioners and O (1) India Private Limited have entered into a Settlement ("Settlement") wherein the Parties herein.have voluntarily and amicably resolved the matter and have agreed to take steps to close FIR/Crime No. 235 of 2025 registered by Cybcr ('rimes Police Station. Hyderabad against the Petitioners herein. I l) Further, Respondent No.2 herein has agreed to appear before the Hon'ble High Court at the time of recording the Compromise Petition in terms of the Settlement enlered by the Respondent No. 2, Petitioners and O (1) India Private Limited. l2) It is submitted that by virtue of said compromise, chances of an ultimate conviction of the Petitioners are bleak and therefbre, no useful purpose would be served by allowing a crirninal prosecution to co tinue and therefore the Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 are filing the abovementioned petition to quash the aforesaid proceedings thereby to prevent abuse of the process of court and to secure cnds of justice, by exercising the power ofquashing under Section 528 ofB.N.S.S. 13) For the reasons stated above it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to take joint memo entered between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 on record and may be pleased to quash the proceedings in FIR No.235 of 2025 of Cyber Crimes Police Station, Hyderabad and all consequent proceedings thereto against Peti(ioners Nos. I to 4 Hence this Joint Memo .-t.."- . :,.i l.::l-'. ._: _t ' i:, '1j.. I -:i' \ rt\,, ,/,trd Petitioner No. I lAccus6dlNo. 4 w Petitioner No. 2/Accused No. 5 Petitioner o. 3/Accused No. 6 D . N1)"*-*''* r$r]rL Counsel for the Petitioners l3 Petitioner No Accused No. 7 $Nl4 I a Re spon o cto Complainant t i i Counsel for e Respondent No. 2