Karnataka High Court
Komala Anjan vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 December, 2020
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
Crl.P.No.4646 of 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4646 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
Komala Anjan
D/o. Anjanappa,
Aged about 31 years,
Residing at #28, 4th Cross,
JJR Nagar, Chamrajpet,
Bangalore City-560 018
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI ISMAIL M. MUSBA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Through South CENPS,
Represented by the
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
High Court,
Bangalore-560 001
2. M/s. Exzellenz Career Shapers Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its CEO Mr. Vikram Kumar
HVP Cypress-II, #96, 2nd Floor
Kavi Lakshmisha Road,
Opp Jain College, VV Puram,
Bangalore-560 004
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI K. ABHINAV ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
Crl.P.No.4646 of 2020
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR
DATED 10.07.2020 IN CR.NO.634/2020 REGISTERED BY
THE RESPONDENT POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER
FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 66 OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT,
2008 AND SECTIONS 406, 420 AND 120-B OF THE IPC
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL CMM
COURT, BENGALURU PRODUCED HERETO AS
ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE IN BENGALURU, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
`
1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.634/2020 registered by the respondent - South CEN Police against the petitioner for the offence under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 and Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code pending on the file of the 1st Addl. CMM Court Bangalore.
2. The complaint came to be filed on 10.07.2020 by the 2nd respondent alleging that while the petitioner was in the employment of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner and one Crl.P.No.4646 of 2020 3 Mr. Vikas Dadhich had together before they left the services of the respondent stolen the CRM data basis software business designs for business plans, data of the Company etc., and thereafter joining another rival Company has misused the data by circulating the date of respondent Nos.2 to 3rd parties. On these basis and on several other allegations the complainant has sought for action to be taken against the petitioner.
3. Sri Ismail Muneeb Musba, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that though the petitioner was employee of respondent No.2 having been appointed on 01.01.2019, the appointment letter does not in any manner make any reference to maintain any confidentiality as regards to the data of the Company. Further more, the 2nd respondent has issued a relieving letter on 22.06.2020 wherein no allegations are made against the petitioner as regards any theft or otherwise of the property of the Company. It is only after the petitioner joined the services of another rival Crl.P.No.4646 of 2020 4 Company that the aforesaid allegations have been made, nearly after two months after the petitioner left services of respondent No.2 - Company. He further submits that the petitioner has been charged with the offences both under the Information Technology Act and as also under the Indian penal Code, the Information Technology Act being a special enactment would over ride the IPC and as such he submits that the proceedings in entirety have to be quashed, if not, the offences under the IPC are to be quashed.
4. Sri K. Abhinav Anand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the data of respondent No.2 has been stolen by the petitioner and Mr. Dadich, the matter requires investigation. This Court at this stage cannot adjudicate whether there is a theft of any data and when it is occurred. Therefore, he submits that the petition ought to be dismissed.
Crl.P.No.4646 of 20205
5. Heard Sri Ismail Muneeb Musba, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Abhinav Anand, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
6. A perusal of the complaint indicate that the allegations made are as regards the theft of the CRV data base, software designs and business plan and data. Sri Ismail Muneeb Musba, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the appointment letter does not require the petitioner to maintain any confidentiality and as such thereby meaning that if any data is taken by the petitioner there is no breach of the appointment letter which could be said to have been committed.
7. I am unable to accept such a submission. Any employee who has been hired by any employer is required to maintain confidentiality, which is the very foundation of the engagement of the employee by an employer. Thus there need not be any specific clause relating thereof. It is only because a person is employee of an employer would an employer make known its confidential data to such an Crl.P.No.4646 of 2020 6 employee. By its very nature the information being confidential merely because there was no clause in the appointment letter would not be a ground to contend that no violation as regards the same can be alleged by the employer.
8. The second contention of Sri Ismail Muneeb Musba, learned counsel for the petitioner is that while issuing a relieving letter on 22.06.2020 there was no particular allegations made against the petitioner and in fact her services have been certified by the 2nd respondent.
9. This aspect also would not be a reason to exercise power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure the allegations in the complaint as that after the petitioner left services of respondent No.2, respondent No.2 came to know of the earlier theft made by the petitioner. When the data was being used by the current employer of the petitioner to target the business leads of respondent No.2, as such being the case whether these facts are true or not would have to be found during the course of trial. This Crl.P.No.4646 of 2020 7 Court cannot give any findings as regards whether there is any theft of data or whether the data has been made use of by competitor or whether there is any loss caused to respondent No.2. In view thereof, reserving liberty of defences of petitioner to be urged during the course of trial, the petition is dismissed.
10. In view of dismissal of the above petition, the prayer sought in I.A. No.2/2020 does not survive for consideration, hence, I.A. No.2/2020 also stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SBS*