Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against Dr. Madhukar G. Angur, former Chancellor of Alliance University, in C.C. No. 3218 of 2021 arising from Crime No. 60 of 2016. The case pertained to allegations involving the manipulation of a university domain name, which the court ultimately held to constitute a civil dispute rather than a criminal offense under the Information Technology Act or Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner, Dr. Madhukar G. Angur, approached the court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the charge sheet filed in Crime No. 60/2016 registered by the Cyber Crime Police Station, CID, Bengaluru. The charge sheet had been filed for offenses under Sections 465 and 468 of the IPC and Sections 66 and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Also Read: “CBI to Probe ‘Builder-Bank Nexus’ in NCR: Supreme Court Orders 7 Preliminary Enquiries, Begins with Supertech”

According to the complaint filed by the second respondent, Mr. Abhay Chebbi, the dispute cantered around the university's domain name www.alliance.edu.in, registered in 2006 by Sudhir G. Angur and later hosted on Net4India's servers. The complainant alleged that following his termination as Chancellor in April 2016, Dr. Madhukar Angur impersonated the Chancellor of Alliance University by sending a letter on the university's letterhead to ERNET India using the email address allianceblr21@gmail.com. This letter requested a change in the administrative email ID of the university's domain, effectively redirecting control.

The police registered an FIR under Sections 66 and 66D of the IT Act and subsequently added IPC Sections 465 and 468 after the investigation. The petitioner was the only person charge-sheeted, although others had initially been named in the complaint. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons in C.C. No. 3218 of 2021, prompting the present petition.

Senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kiran S. Javali, contended that the entire dispute was civil in nature and arose out of internal strife within the university's Board. He submitted that Dr. Madhukar Angur, as founder and lifetime Chancellor under Section 15(2) of the Alliance University Act, had continued to use the domain under the belief of lawful entitlement. He further stated that the complainants had filed multiple cases with a vindictive intent.

In contrast, Senior Counsel Sri M.S. Shyam Sundar for Respondent No. 2 argued that the petitioner fraudulently used the domain name post-termination for wrongful gain. The Additional State Public Prosecutor also submitted that a full-fledged trial was necessary to determine the petitioner's innocence.

The complaint submitted to the Cyber Crime Police detailed various allegations:

• Fraudulent change of domain administrative email

• Blocking of web services essential to university operations

• Fabrication and misuse of university letterhead

• Unauthorized parallel website creation and payment gateway integration allegedly used to divert funds amounting to over Rs. 62 lakhs

The charge sheet included detailed digital evidence, claims of impersonation, and references to previously filed FIRs concerning allied allegations against the petitioner.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna examined the factual matrix and statutory provisions, including Sections 66, 66D of the IT Act, and Sections 465 and 468 IPC.

The court recorded: "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."

Referring to Section 66 of the IT Act, the court noted: "Section 66 of the Act makes one punishable, if he dishonestly or fraudulently does any act referred to in Section 43 of the Act."

In relation to Section 66D: "Section 66D punishes any person for cheating or impersonation by using computer resource."

However, the court observed that: "Wherefrom dishonest intention has sprung in the case at hand is ununderstandable."

Justice Nagaprasanna further noted: "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."

Referring to precedent from the Supreme Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) and Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), the court stated the duty of courts to scrutinize allegations that convert civil disputes into criminal proceedings.

The order stated: "A seemingly civil dispute of usage of domain name is projected to become a crime. It is in such circumstance; the Apex Court holds that the complaint should be read between the lines to see the real intent of the complainant."

The court stated that the complaint and charge sheet did not disclose ingredients of the alleged offenses, and recorded: "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."

The Court concluded: 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. 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.

Also Read: "Major Earning Children Entitled to Compensation: Bombay High Court : ‘Right of Legal Representatives Irrespective of Dependency’, Enhances Award for Deceased’s Son and Daughter

Accordingly, it ordered: "The criminal proceedings in C.C. No.3218 of 2021 pending before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.60 of 2016 registered for offences punishable under Sections 465 and 468 of the IPC and Sections 66 and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, stand quashed."

The court made it clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings against any other accused pending before any other fora.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Sri Kiran S. Javali, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Srivasthava H.K.

For Respondent: Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, Additional State Public Prosecutor,  Sri M.S. Shyam Sundar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Dr. Vandana P.L.

Case Title: Dr. Madhukar G. Angur v. State of Karnataka and Another

Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 11024 of 2023

Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna

[Read/Download order]