ORAL ORDER

1. By invoking inherent powers of this Court, the applicant has preferred this quashing petition in relation to the FIR being C.R.No.11191036211469 of 2021, registered with Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(e), 72 and 72(A) of the Information Technology Act. Subsequently, by making amendment in the petition, the applicant has also prayed for quashing of chargesheet.

2. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. N.R. Kodekar appearing for and on behalf of the applicant and Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. C.M. Shah for the respondent-State.

3. The second respondent who has lodged the FIR, despite of service of notice of rule, has chosen not to remain present and throughout the proceedings, he did not remain present in the matter.

4. The brief facts giving rise to file present application are that, the second respondent Valay Parikh has lodged an FIR against the applicant under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, inter alia, alleging that, after leaving the job by the accused, he used the confidential information with the customer of the company for its personal gain and violated the employment agreement. The company Entigrity Private Limited is in business of information security and quality management and other services and the scope of business expanded to various international companies. The accused was employed as an Assistant Manager from 19.09.2016 and had worked with the company till December, 2020. When he was with the company, he had worked with Stacy Sand, CPA which was the prime customer of the company. After resignation by the accused, by violating the policy of company and employment agreement, he passes the confidential information of the company to the customers and others and same has been acknowledged and confessed voluntarily by the accused and therefore, he has committed the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust, whereby he caused wrongful loss to the company as well as damaged the credentials and reputation of the company in the open market.

5. Upon registration of aforesaid FIR, the applicant has approached this Court for quashing of it mainly on the ground that, no offence is made out or disclosed against him and therefore, the initiation of criminal proceedings is nothing but a malafide action on the part of the ex- employer only with a view to harass the applicant and restrain him in performing his job which is his fundamental right to do for his livelihood.

6. Mr. N.R. Kodekar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that after registration of offence and during the course of investigation, nothing incriminating has been found against the applicant to establish the ingredients of offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating. The alleged confession is not voluntary and cannot be used for the criminal prosecution and therefore, prima-facie, the allegations accepted to be true, do not make out or disclose offence alleged qua the applicant.

7. On the other hand, the second respondent who has lodged the FIR, remain absent throughout the proceedings.

8. Learned State counsel Ms. C.M. Shah has submitted that, the prima-facie offence is made out against the applicant and thus, whether allegations are true or false would be a question of fact to be tried by the trial court and in that case, no case is made out.

9. The issue falls for my consideration as to whether the applicant has made out a case for quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings thereto.

10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and chargesheet case papers, this Court is of considered view that, except bald allegations nothing in the form of documentary evidence being found to establish the breach of employment agreement or policy of the company. This is a classic case where the investigating agency has filed chargesheet without