The court ruled that mere allegations of data transfer without evidence of criminal intent do not constitute a prosecutable offence, emphasizing the distinction between civil disputes and criminal charges.

CAV ORDER

The petitioner/accused is knocking at the doors of this Court in the subject petition calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.1145 of 2020 for offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC and Sections 66C, 66D and 72A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. Heard Sri C.S.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri K. Raghavendra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The 2^nd respondent/Samsung R & D Institute India-Bangalore Private Limited (‘the Company’ for short) is the complainant. The petitioner on completion of his Master’s in Engineering from Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur and securing first rank accepts offer of employment offered by the 2^nd respondent/Company after an interview. He joins the Company as an Associate Director in the Commercial Modem Software Development Team. The petitioner works for about a year and on 27-04-2020 tendered his resignation. After his resignation he sent documents from his official email id for reviewing his assigned responsibilities as an employee. When no response was received even on the last date of the notice period on 29-05-2020, he leaves the Company. After exit of the petitioner from the Company comes the impugned crime registered on 24-09-2020 which becomes a crime in Crime No.1145 of 2020 for the afore-quoted offences. The police conduct investigation and file a ‘B’ report before the concerned Court. The complainant files a protest petition. The ‘B’ report is rejected and cognizance is taken for the afore-quoted offences. Taking of cognizance on rejection of ‘B’ report is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner in the capacity of him being the Associate Director and in terms of employment agreement had access to confidentiality or confidential information. He is now alleged that he has sent confidential organizational information via 24 emails to his personal id in violation of the security policy of the complainant and the petitioner admits that he has sent all those mails. He voluntarily surrenders his laptop, and mobile phone prior to his last date of working in terms of the notice period. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has never indulged in data thieving as is alleged and the issue which is purely a commercial dispute between the parties is sought to be dressed with a colour of crime. Therefore, the Police had rightly filed a ‘B’ report, as the issue being a dispute with regard to employment and the Court has erroneously taken cognizance of the offence. He would seek quashment of entire proceedings pending before the concerned Court.

5. Per-contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent/Company would contend that the Police did not conduct a proper investigation. On a shoddy investigation, they filed a ‘B’ report. The Court has rightly rejected the ‘B’ report on filing of protest petition and taken cognizance of the offence. The civil suit is instituted by the complainant to restrain the petitioner/accused from divulging any confidential information. Injunction is granted against the petitioner/accused. The petitioner also filed a counter claim which is rejected by the concerned Court. He would submit that in a given case both civil and criminal law can go hand in hand. He seeks dismissal of the petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by