- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010026332025 NC: 2026:KHC:49185 CRL.P No. 607 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 607 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. PUBLIQVERSE DATA SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED IS A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NOB.1306, PURVA SEASONS CV RAMAN NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560093 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR PRANEET GOURAV MISHRA 2. PRANEET GOURAV MISHRA SON OF PRADEEP KUMAR MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.B1306 PURVA SEASONS APARTMENT, CV RAMAN NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560093. 3. RANJEET MOHAPATRA SON OF SURENDRA KUMAR AGED 40 YEARS, MOHAPATRA, B704, HERITAGE ONE, MAIDAWAS ROAD, NEAR PARAS TRINITY, SECTOR 62, GURGAON, HARYANA – 12201 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VINAY KUTTAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010026332025 NC: 2026:KHC:49185 CRL.P No. 607 of 2025 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA STATION HOUSE OFFICER DEVENAHALLI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU 2. SRI. SHANKAR GANESH S/O JAYA PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT D518 CEDAR BRIGADE ORCHARDS SPINAL RD. BYCHAPURA BOODIHALI, DEVANAHALLI BANGALORE RURAL KARNATAKA – 562110 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RANJITH KUMAR N., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SATHISH KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR BEARING CRIME NO. 0191 OF 2024 REGISTERED BY DEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION ON 25.11.2024 FOR OFFENSES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 506, 406, AND 420 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CJ AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI AND THE COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS; PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010026332025 NC: 2026:KHC:49185 CRL.P No. 607 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a To quash the FIR bearing Crime No.0191 of 2024 registered by Devanahalli Police Station on 25.11.2024 for offenses punishable under Sections 506, 406, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, pending on the file of CJ and JMFC, Devanahalli and the Complaint filed against the Petitioners; produced as Annexure-A and Annexure-B and/or b Pass any other order in the interest of justice. 2. Respondent no.2 has lodged a complaint on 25.11.2024 against petitioner No.1 and its directors - petitioner no.2 and petitioner no.3, alleging that the complainant had been introduced to them through one Mr.Praneet Mishra wherein they had discussed about the complainant providing intellectual and technical contribution to the company and he was appointed as Chief Technology Officer of the Company. 3. It is contended that the complainant had provided several of his ideas, business model, execution strategies, growth roadmap etc. for the purpose of operation of the petitioner No.1 – Company. In pursuance of which, employment agreement and - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010026332025 NC: 2026:KHC:49185 CRL.P No. 607 of 2025 Non-disclosure agreement (NDA) had been entered into, as per which, the complainant was to be given 2% equity in the company and subsequently 8% equity after 6 months, totaling to 10%. Instead of doing any of the above, it is induced by that promise that the complainant claimed that he had handed over several details as indicated supra. But however the petitioners did not stand by their agreement and thereafter terminated the employment within the said period of six months as also locked the premises to deprive the complainant of the access to the said office and the work product of the complainant and in that background that it was alleged that offences under Section 406, 420 and 506 of IPC had been caused. 4. The learned counsel to the petitioner would submit that the relationship between the petitioners and respondent no.2 is an employer-employee relationship and as such, a criminal complaint could not be filed in relation thereto. 5. Though at first blush the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is attractive inasmuch as there is an employer-employee relationship. In the present case, what would have to be seen by this - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010026332025 NC: 2026:KHC:49185 CRL.P No. 607 of 2025 Court is that apart from an employer-employee relationship, there was also exchange of confidential information, business plans, business ideas between the complainant and the petitioners and it is for that reason that 10% of the equity in the company was agreed to be provided to respondent no.2. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, it would have to be ascertained as to why such 10% was agreed to be given, since such a large shareholding or equity would not be given to a single person without substantial contribution by that person. Whether there was indeed a contribution made or not is not a matter which could be decided in a petition under Section 482 that would have to be decided during the course of trial. At this stage, the relationship between the petitioners and respondent no.2 cannot be said to be a mere employment agreement in the light of such a large share holding being provided to respondent no.2. The allegations made by respondent no.2 cannot be brushed aside at this stage requiring the quashing of the criminal proceedings. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010026332025 NC: 2026:KHC:49185 CRL.P No. 607 of 2025 7. Hence, reserving liberty to the petitioners to agitate all defenses that may be available to the petitioners, the above petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1