Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Unknown vs High Court Of Andhra Pradesh At ... on 21 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: Crl.P.Nos.3597 & 4566 of 2025
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.No DATE OFFICE
ORDER NOTE
21.04.2026 Dr.YLR, J
Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned
Senior Counsel appearing Sri D.Rambabu,
learned Counsel for the Petitioners in-part.
The learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioners vehemently argued that the
Petitioners, being the Executive Dean, Dean,
Data Analyst, Vice-Principal and Administrative
Officer respectively of Sri Chaitanya Institute,
Gosala Campus, had either been entrusted with
legitimate access to the software and data of Sri
Chaitanya Educational Institutions solely by
virtue of their employment, or in the case of the
fourth and fifth Petitioners, had absolutely no
access to any software or data whatsoever, and
therefore no culpability can be attributed to any of
them in the alleged offences under Sections
66(C) read with Section 43 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000. It was further contended
that the de-facto complainant himself, in his
sworn affidavit filed in O.S.No.68 of 2021 on the
file of the Hon'ble XII Additional District Judge,
Vijayawada, made no semblance of allegation
whatsoever against the fourth and fifth
Petitioners, and their names were conspicuously
2
absent even in the FIR, which clearly
demonstrates that they have been maliciously
and illegally roped into the criminal proceedings
as an afterthought, while in respect of the
Petitioner Nos.1 to 3, the allegations made in the
charge sheet are vague, bald, omnibus and
general in nature and do not prima facie
constitute any offence, inasmuch as neither the
alleged intellectual property has been duly
registered under the Copyright Act, 1957, nor is
there any specific and cogent material to
demonstrate that the Petitioners dishonestly or
fraudulently misappropriated or stolen any data
belonging to the institution of the de-facto
complainant, as the access to the software
granted to them was purely in the course of their
legitimate official duties.
The learned Senior Counsel further urged
that the learned Civil Court, in its order dated
08.11.2021 in I.A.No.334 of 2021 in O.S.No.68 of
2021 on the file of the learned XII Additional
District & Sessions Judge-cum-VI Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada,
categorically held that the entire dispute is
nothing but a breach of the terms and conditions
of the employment agreement between the
parties, and further deprecated the conduct of the
plaintiff for fabricating and antedating documents
with a view to defeat the arbitration clause
embedded in the agreement, and accordingly
3
directed the parties to approach the Arbitrator for
redressal of their grievances, which itself
establishes that the dispute is purely civil in
nature. It was further submitted that the 161
statements of the witnesses are not corroborative
of each other and are vitiated by stereotypic and
hearsay evidence barred under Section 60 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and that the criminal
proceedings have been initiated with inordinate
and unexplained delay, which itself portrays the
mala fide intention and afterthought of the de-
facto complainant, who, having approached the
learned Civil Court and failed to obtain the reliefs
sought, has now resorted to criminal prosecution
as a tool of harassment and vengeance against
all the Petitioners for quitting his institution and
establishing a competing academy, and that
none of the Petitioners have any previous
criminal antecedents of any nature and are
respectable individuals of the society. The entire
dispute being purely civil in nature, the
intellectual property not being registered under
the Copyright Act, the Petitioner Nos.4 & 5
having been completely exonerated even by the
de-facto complainant's own sworn affidavit, and
the criminal proceedings being manifestly an
abuse of the process of court actuated by oblique
and mala fide motives to wreck vengeance and
bring the Petitioners to a negotiating table.
This Court, having carefully perused the
4
contentions advanced by the learned Senior
Counsel for the Petitioners, the material placed
on record, and the rival submissions made on
behalf of the Respondents, is of the considered
view that it is absolutely necessary and imperative in the interest of justice to summon and hear the de-facto complainant or the Director of Sri Chaitanya Educational Institutions, who is the controlling authority of the institution under whose aegis the alleged intellectual property, including the software, question banks, teaching methodology, and academic data, was purportedly developed over a period of 35 years at a cost of crores of rupees. It is necessary to find out in detail as to the precise and specific nature of the proprietary data and software allegedly stolen, whether the same has been formally registered under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957, the specific and distinct role attributed to each of the five petitioners in the alleged misappropriation of data, particularly in view of the fact that the Petitioner Nos.4 & 5, being the Vice-Principal and Administrative Officer, had no access to any software or data and were not even named in the FIR or in the sworn affidavit filed by the de-facto complainant before the learned Civil Court, the circumstances and the inordinate delay in lodging the police report against all the accused, and whether the simultaneous invocation of civil proceedings and 5 criminal prosecution against the same set of accused for the very same cause of action constitutes an abuse of the process of this Court. Furthermore, in view of the learned Civil Court's categorical finding in I.A.No.334 of 2021 that the plaintiff itself had fabricated and antedated certain documents to defeat the arbitration clause and had its conduct deprecated by the learned Civil Court, and in further view of the fact that the de-facto complainant's own sworn affidavit filed in the civil proceedings contains not even a semblance of allegation against Petitioner Nos.4 & 5, this Court deems it essential to hear the de- facto complainant or the Director of Sri Chaitanya Educational Institutions at first point of time so as to satisfy itself whether the initiation and continuation of the present criminal proceedings against all five petitioners is bona fide and based on tangible material, or is actuated by mala fide motives and extraneous considerations with a view to harass the Petitioners and to wreck vengeance upon them for quitting the institution and establishing a competing academy.
In this regard, there was no proper assistance from the learned junior Counsel appearing today for the de-facto complainant.
The Station House Officer, Krishna is directed to secure presence of the de-facto complainant and produce him before this Court on 29.04.2026.
6For further hearing, post on 29.04.2026. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.1270 of 2023 on the file of the learned V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, until the next date of hearing.
________ Dr.YLR, J VTS