Charges based on public domain information do not substantiate criminal proceedings for data theft, leading to quashing of the case.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in CC.No.33429/2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 66 and 66(C) of the Information Technology Act, 2008 and Sections 408, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short).

2. Heard Sri. Siji Malayil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State.

3. Respondent No.2/complainant though served long ago has remained unrepresented.

4. This Court on 28.11.2025 had passed the following order:

"Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Addl.SPP for respondent No.1.

The complainant is served on 13.10.2025.

Therefore, to grant one more opportunity for representation of the complainant, list the matter on 09.01.2026.

The interim order granted earlier is extended till the next date of hearing."

Even today neither the complainant nor a counsel representing the complainant is present. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioners and the State are heard.

5. The petitioners are erstwhile employees of a Company, by name EOX Vantage. They enter the Company in different capacities as office bearers between 2009 and 2010. After working about 12 years in the Company, they submit their resignation letters on different dates. The first petitioner on 01.05.2022, the second petitioner on 04.06.2022. The resignation letters were accepted and the petitioners were relieved from the Company. After about 8 months after the relief of the petitioners from the Company, a complaint comes to be registered on 23.02.2023 alleging theft of data. The Police then conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against these petitioners for the afore-quoted offences. Filing of the charge sheet is what has driven these petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the complaint of data theft is with regard to the list of clients and the mails or contact details of those persons. The learned counsel taking this Court through the documents appended to the petition would demonstrate that these are documents which are in public domain and there cannot be data theft allegation of a document that is in public domain. In that light, he would seek quashment of the proceedings, as the crime is registered according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to wreak vengeance for the reason that the petitioners have left the Company after working in the Company for about 12 years.

7. The learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the Police after investigation have filed a charge sheet and therefore, it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full blown trial.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the available material on record.

9. As observed herein above, the complainant is served and unrepresented and after giving opportunities also, neither the complainant nor there is a representation for the complainant in the case at hand.

10. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. They are a matter of record. The entry of the petitioners into the Company - EOX Vantage is on 10.11.2019 and 01.04.2010 respectively, their resignations from the Company is 01.05.2022 and 04.06.2022, respectively. After the exit of the petitioners from the Company, the complainant institutes two proceedings; one seeks to set the criminal law into motion by registering a complaint on 23.02.2023 and a civil suit in O.S.No.3154/2023, contemporaneou