Authority: High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru

Order Date: 1 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Amit Bansal (aged ≈ 46), represented by Advocate P.K. Shrikara; Respondents – State of Karnataka (represented by Vivek Nagar Police) and Krithika Muthukrishnan, represented by senior counsel.
  • Petition: Criminal Petition No. 2397 of 2020 filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quash of two orders dated 08‑07‑2019 and 21‑12‑2019 passed by the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in Crime No. 176/2015 (currently C.C. No. 511/2020).
  • Background: A private complaint dated 30‑05‑2015 was lodged by the owner of www.newrubric.com alleging that Pearson India Education Services Pvt Ltd (CEO = Accused No. 1) copied the complainant’s software “Kaleido” (patent pending) and marketed it, constituting offences under IPC Sections 380, 406, 468, 471, 420 and 120B and IT Act Section 65. The police filed a ‘B’ report; the magistrate rejected the ‘B’ report, took cognizance, recorded the complainant’s sworn statement on 17‑12‑2016, and on 21‑12‑2019 issued summons to the accused, including Amit Bansal (Accused No. 4, Managing Director of the company).
  • Issues Raised:

1. The complaint, protest petition and sworn statement do not specifically allege any offence by Amit Bansal; the company itself was never arraigned, making prosecution of the managing director untenable.

2. The trial court rejected the ‘B’ report without examining the protest memo (Annexure‑F) or providing reasons, contrary to established procedure.

3. Summons were issued without considering the protest memo, sworn statement, or supporting documents, violating Sections 200, 203 and 204 of the Cr.P.C.

  • Legal Submissions: The petitioner relied on several Supreme Court judgments (e.g., All Cargo Movers (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain, Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels, Sharad Kumar Sanghi v. Sangita Rane, Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Government (NCT of Delhi), Pepsi Foods v. Special Judicial Magistrate, Zunaid v. State of Uttar Pradesh) emphasizing that without arraignment of the corporate entity, vicarious liability cannot be attached and that a magistrate must apply his mind to the material before rejecting a ‘B’ report or issuing process.
  • Court’s Analysis: The High Court held that:
  • The absence of specific allegations against the petitioner and the non‑arraignment of Pearson India Education Services preclude any criminal prosecution against the managing director.
  • The trial court erred in rejecting the ‘B’ report without scrutinising the protest memo and the complainant’s evidence.
  • The issuance of summons was likewise erroneous as the magistrate failed to consider the protest memo, sworn statement and documents collectively.
  • Consequently, the procedural errors do not vitiate the proceedings but warrant quashing of the impugned orders.

Final Outcome

  • The petition is allowed.
  • The order dated 08‑07‑2019 rejecting the ‘B’ report is quashed.
  • The order dated 21‑12‑2019 taking cognizance and issuing summons against Amit Bansal is quashed.
  • The Registrar General is directed to communicate this order to all magistrates and judges handling private complaints and to the Director of the Karnataka Judicial Academy for inclusion in training programmes.

Topics: Court Procedure, Intellectual Property, Criminal Procedure