High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) dismissed criminal miscellaneous petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by petitioners Jitendra Jain, Sandeep Agarwal, and Ajeet Jain to quash FIR No.139/2021 registered at PS Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, for offences under Sections 43, 66, 72 & 72A of IT Act, 2000 and Sections 420 & 120B IPC. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

FIR lodged by complainant Arun Goyal of Octal IT Solution LLP alleging ex-employees petitioners stole client leads, source code, project details while in employment, used them to start competing company Inventcolabs Infotech Pvt. Ltd. in 2020, contacted clients offering lower cost services, specific instances with clients Raphael Reich (project from Feb 2019, USD 32K) and Vladimir Kolessov (lead Jan 2020), also Upwork profile since 2016 breaching employment agreement. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Petitioners argued dispute purely civil (breach of contract post-resignation, independent business), no criminal ingredients, IT Act as special law overrides IPC per Section 81, offences under IT Act bailable/compoundable unlike IPC 420/120B added malafide. (!) (!) [5][8][9]

Respondents countered FIR discloses cognizable offence under IPC 420 (cheating with inducement/deception causing delivery of property/loss), IT Act Sections 43/66 cover unauthorized access but not deception/inducement under IPC 415/420, both regimes applicable. [10]

Court reproduced relevant provisions: IT Act Section 43 (unauthorized access, copying data, stealing source code etc.), 65 (tampering source documents), 66 (dishonest/fraudulent acts under 43), 72 (breach confidentiality), 72A (disclosure breaching contract), 81 (overriding effect); IPC 415 (cheating by deception), 420 (cheating inducing property delivery). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

IT Act comprehensively covers cyber offences/data protection but does not bar IPC if FIR shows cheating via deceit/fraud causing wrongful loss/gain; overriding effect of Section 81 inapplicable where distinct elements like deception/inducement present. [13][14][15]

FIR allegations prima facie disclose cheating: petitioners stole source code/client data during employment, contacted clients deceptively diverting business to new firm (directors family members), causing complainant loss; elements of fraud/dishonesty plus deception distinguish from pure IT Act offences. [14][15][16]

Investigation revealed petitioners employed till 2020-2021, new company incorporated Apr 2020 with family directors (no IT background), simultaneous employment/diversion of leads, no records of direct contracts with complainant's clients. [17]

IPC 420 covers inducement/deception leading to property delivery (including data), additional to IT Act's dishonest access; offences not identical despite overlap, both prosecutable. [15][16] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Civil/criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously even if overlapping allegations; criminal not quashable merely if civil dispute element exists, especially where cheating ingredients prima facie made out. [19][20] (!) (!)

Petitions dismissed, stay on proceedings vacated; observations prima facie, no prejudice to investigation/trial. [21][22][25] (!)