Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Ex-Chancellor Of Alliance University Over Alleged Misuse Of Domain Name

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case registered under provisions of the Information Technology Act, against Dr Madhukar G Angur, Ex-Chancellor of Alliance University, accusing him of misusing the nomenclature, seals, intellectual property of the University and making false claims that he is the Chancellor of the University. A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition and quashed the offence registered for offences punishable under Sections 465 and 468 of the IPC and Sections 66 and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The court said “If the facts obtaining in the case at hand, the complaint and summary of the charge sheet are noticed, the complaint is registered to wreak vengeance against the petitioner in a seemingly civil dispute, rendering it a colour of crime.” As per the complaint, the domain name of the Alliance Business School Private Limited is registered as www.alliance.edu.in with ERNET India, on 16.03.2010. In July 2012, the domain name was hosted on the server of Net4 India on behalf of Sudhir G.Angur. It appears that a huge dispute arose between the members of the Board of Directors of Alliance University. Owing to certain financial irregularities, embezzlement of funds and other allied misgivings, the petitioner was terminated from the post of Chancellor by the Board of Directors of the sponsoring body - Alliance Business School. The impugned complaint on 15-06-2016 alleged about creation of email ID by the petitioner as 'allianceblr21@gmail.com' and using it fraudulently, sent a letter on the Alliance University letter head to the administrator of ERNET India, New Delhi, claiming himself to be the Chancellor of Alliance University, requested to change the Admin e-mail ID of the domain name - 'www.alliance.edu.in' from 'santosh.k@alliance.edu.in' to ''allianceblr21@gmail.com'. The petitioner argued that the domain name 'www.alliance.edu.in' was the one funded by the petitioner on the score that the petitioner has a right for creation of a domain name and accordingly, created the domain name. There is no fraud played. There is no forgery nor there is any violation of the Act. Moreover, for a dispute that has to be thrashed out before a competent civil Court, criminal law is set into motion. The counsel for the complainant argued that petitioner having been terminated from the post of Chancellor of Alliance University, has been fraudulently using the domain name for the purposes of illegal gains. Police after investigation have filed a charge sheet. It is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean as there is prima facie evidence against the petitioner for the offences punishable under the Act and forgery.Findings: The bench on going through the records said “A perusal of the complaint and the summary of charge sheet is indicative of the fact that the entire crime is based upon change of domain name and usage of domain name by the petitioner allegedly after his termination.” It added “The petitioner admits to have done on the ground that he is the Chancellor and continued to be the Chancellor of the Alliance University.” Following this, it said, “Wherefrom dishonest intention has sprung in the case at hand is ununderstandable. The petitioner on the strength of him being the Chancellor of Alliance University and on the reason that he has continued as Chancellor of the University has operated the domain or opened the domain as the case may be. It was always open to the complainant to register a civil suit seeking an injunction against the petitioner for usage of domain name. But, instead, the complainant chooses to set the criminal law into motion.” Thus it held “ None of the ingredients that are necessary to be found in the afore-quoted offences are found even to their semblance in the case at hand. A seemingly civil dispute of usage of domain name is projected to become a crime.” Allowing the petition it said “In such circumstances, this Court should step into exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and obliterate the crime, failing which, it would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.” Appearance: Senior Advocate Kiran S.Javali, for Advocate Srivasthava H K for Petitioner.Addl SPP B.N. Jagadeesha, for respondent No.1. Senior Advocate M.S. Shyam Sundar, a/w Advocate Dr Vandana P L for R2. Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 158Case Title: Dr Madhukar G Anagur AND State of Karnataka & ANR Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.11024 OF 2023.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Ex-Chancellor Of Alliance University Over Alleged Misuse Of Domain Name

Mustafa Plumber

Tags