(BY SRI. HARSHITH N BALAKRISHNA.,ADVOCATE) v. MR. YESHWANTH RAJ PARASMAL

(BY SRI. HARSHITH N BALAKRISHNA.,ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15554 CRL.P No. 5221 of 2025 AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY POLICE STATION ASHOKNAGAR BENGALURU.

MINDREFLEX TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT UNIT NO.31, W 76, DOOR 1, ADARSH OPUS, CLAYWORKS OPUS CAMPBELL ROAD AUSTIN TOWN, BENGALURU KARNATAKA 560 047, INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY AND DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT, MR. YESHWANTH RAJ PARASMAL. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M R PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. BHARGAVA D BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT AND FIR DATED 20.08.2024 (ANNEXURE-A AND ANNEXURE-B) IN CR.NO.258/2024 ASHOK NAGAR P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. CJM AT BENGALURU IN RELATION TO OFFENCES P/U/S 408, 420 AND 34 OF IPC, 1860 R/W SEC. 66C OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15554 CRL.P No. 5221 of 2025 ORAL ORDER

1. Sri Bhargava D Bhat, learned counsel files power on behalf of the respondent No.2.

2. The learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent No.1.

The petitioners (accused Nos.1 to 3) challenge the registration of the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 34 IPC.

Respondent No.2 (the company) lodged the FIR alleging that the petitioners, who are former employees of respondent No.2-company, committed theft of data and sold it to a rival company.

The parties are present before this Court.

The petitioners have produced a copy of the settlement agreement dated 10.01.2025 entered into between the petitioners (accused Nos.1 to 3), accused No.4, and respondent No.2. As per the terms of the agreement, respondent No.2 has agreed to withdraw the allegations against the petitioners and has no objection to quashing the impugned FIR. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15554 CRL.P No. 5221 of 2025

In accordance with the terms of the settlement, the petitioners (accused Nos.1 to 3), along with accused No.4, have returned the data in question.

Although the offences alleged against the petitioners are cognizable and non-compoundable, considering that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute, subjecting the petitioners to further investigation would serve no useful purpose. In light of the settlement, the likelihood of the police filing a charge sheet is remote and bleak.

In view of the above, continuing the criminal investigation against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law.