The court quashed the chargesheet against the appellants, finding no prima facie case under the alleged IPC sections, emphasizing the abuse of legal process.

J U D G M E N T

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

THE APPEAL

1. By a common impugned judgment and order dated 31^st July, 2019, a impugned order learned Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, [High Court] dismissed Criminal Petition No. 3961 of 2015 (Badrinarayana Jaganathan vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.) and Criminal Petition No. 3962 of 2015 (Madhushree Datta vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.), both filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, [Cr. PC], seeking quashing of the chargesheet filed under Section 173(2), Cr. PC and the entire proceedings in Case Crime No. 53073 of 2014, on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, [ACMM]

2. The accused appellants, [appellants] - Madhushree Datta, [first accused] and Badrinarayana Jaganathan, [second accused] - have taken exception to the impugned order by presenting these appeals.

FACTS

3. The proceedings before the ACMM have, as its genesis, an incident of 25^th October, 2013. The second respondent as complainant, [complainant] lodged a complaint dated 26^th October, 2013 with the Sub-Inspector of Police, H.A.L. Police Station, Marathahalli, Bangalore, against M/s Juniper Networks India Private Limited, [Company] and the appellants. The complainant asserted that she was employed as a Technical System Analyst at the Company, where she was subjected to ongoing harassment by the management. She claimed that she was coerced into resigning under duress, with the threat of immediate termination if she did not comply. Specifically, the complainant alleged that on October 25, 2013, between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., the first accused, who held the position of Human Resources Manager at the Company, demanded that the complainant resign under threat of immediate dismissal. Furthermore, the first accused, allegedly instructed the complainant not to return to work and confiscated her personal belongings, including her laptop, bag, wallet, money, credit cards et cetera. The complainant further asserted that the laptop contained proprietary intellectual property, specifically codes and other work, that she had personally created. In addition, the complainant alleged that the management ordered her removal from the premises, with security personnel escorting her out and reportedly engaging in behaviour amounting to physical harassment, assault and threatening with dire consequences.

4. Following the above complaint, a Non-Cognizable Report, [NCR] was registered on 26^th October, 2013. The NCR states that the employees of the Company, namely the appellants, subjected the complainant to both mental and physical harassment by confiscating her laptop, which contained her data. The complainant subsequently filed a formal complaint seeking an inquiry and investigation into the matter, following her forcible termination from employment on October 25, 2013.

5. More than 2 (two) months later, a First Information Report, [FIR] was lodged by the complainant accusing the Company and the appellants of having committed offences punishable under sections 323, 504, 506, 509, 511 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860, [IPC]. The FIR states that the Company, along with the first accused, subjected the complainant to both physical and mental torture. They allegedly confiscated the laptop issued to the complainant and forcibly evicted her from the Company.

6. Following the registration of the FIR, an investigation was conducted into the alleged offences under Sections 323 , 504, 506, 509, and 511 of the IPC. A chargesheet was filed on 23^rd April 2014, arraigning the appellants