Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 55509
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
Ramadasu Bandaru – Appellant
Versus
State represented by The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Chennai South – Respondent
Crl.O.P.Nos.11214 | Crl.O.P.No.11215 | Crl.O.P.No.11216
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.C.Manishankar, Mr.Rahul Unnikrishnan, Mr.V.Adith Narayan
For the Respondents: Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, Mr.A.K.Sriram, Mr.A.P.Balaji
Criminal allegations lacking substantiation can be quashed when the underlying issue is civil in nature, preventing abuse of legal process.
Headnote:(A) Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 - Sections 66 and 43(j) - FIR quashed - Allegations of theft and misappropriation of confidential data by ex-employees - Criminal Original Petitions filed to quash the FIR based on complaints of civil nature - The court held that continuing the FIR would be an abuse of the process of law as the allegations do not establish criminal offences. (Paras 2, 6, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, former employees of a company, are accused of conspiring to steal and misappropriate confidential data after resigning. The complaints were found to have a civil underpinning and were linked to a contractual dispute rather than a genuine criminal offence.
Findings of Court:
The court noted the absence of concrete evidence of data theft, citing the reports from an independent expert. Continued investigation in the absence of a criminal basis was deemed harassment.
Issues: Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute a criminal offence or a civil dispute, and whether the FIR should be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the allegations did not meet the requirements for criminal proceedings, emphasizing that the civil nature of the dispute should not be criminalized. The precedent established by Supreme Court cases guided the decision to quash the FIR.
Result: FIR quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal proceedings initiated based on fir. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. challenge to fir allegations as civil dispute. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's role in investigating cognizable offences. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. civil remedies available; criminal proceedings quashed. (Para 10) |
| 5. final order to quash fir. (Para 11 , 12) |
COMMON ORDER
These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.10 of 2023 on the file of the Cyber Crime Police Station, Chennai South, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai, registered against the petitioner in these petitions who are arrayed as A1, A2 and A3, for the offences under Sections 66 and 43(j) of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 .
2.The crux of the allegations in the FIR is that the accused A1 to A3 are ex-employees of the 2nd respondent/Cred Avenue Private Limited. According to the de facto complainant, who is the authorised signatory of the said Cred Avenue Private Limited, the accused, who are their ex- employees, hatched a criminal conspiracy to make wrongful gain and committed theft and misappropriation of confidential and proprietary data of the complainant's Company. The complainant has a workforce of over 820 employees. The business developed by the complainant Company is unique and it holds all intellectual property and rights in the business to the exclusion of all others. A1 and A2 joined the complainant's Company in October, 2020 and A3 joined the Company in May, 2021 in the Yubi Pools Department. The Yubi Pools platform provides an opportunity to the clients of the complainant to find investment opportunities as well as to find investors for their securitisation products/transaction comprising of identified loan assets. The accused, as a part of their employment, had access to the computer network and cloud storage facilities of the complainant, which contains the confidential proprietary data and trade secrets of the complainant and its customers. The accused have custody of the key responsibilities and were exclusively dealing with sensitive confidential and proprietary information and trade secrets including product details, pricing, customer information, and competitive business, important leads and co-ordinates of the customers. In September 2022, A3 resigned from the complainant's Company. Thereafter, within few days, the other accused also resigned. Thereafter, the complainant came to know that the accused were canvassing and soliciting the business of its customers and clients. Thereafter, the complainant, on quick check on the computer systems, found that the accused persons have stolen the confidential data and information from the complainant's computer network, including the complainant's Google Drive provided to them for storage purposes, and the data has been transferred to the personal computers of the accused only in order to cause wrongful loss to the complainant's Company. Hence, it is the allegation of the de facto complainant that all the accused persons have conspired together with a criminal intention to systematically damage, destroy and steal the confidential and proprietary information residing in the complainant's computer resource and they have misappropriated the confidential and proprietary data of the complainant Company to build their own venture, and solicit customers and have cheated the complainant. Therefore, the complainant lodged a compliant before the 1st respondent Police. Based on the said complaint, an FIR has been registered in Crime No.10 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 66 and 43(j) of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 . To quash the same, the present Criminal Original Petitions are filed.
3.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would mainly contend that the allegations made by the complainant do not make out a case against the petitioners for the alleged offences. The FIR also does not indicate the nature of the alleged theft. The allegation that the petitioners solic
