Karnataka High Court
Vikas Dadhich vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 December, 2020
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
Crl.P.No.5343 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.5343 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
Vikas Dadhich,
S/o. Ramesh Kumar Dadhich
Aged about 27 years,
Residing at 10, New Parihar Nagar II
Bhadwasiya Road,
Jodhpur-342 001
Rajasthan.
... 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.5343 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
AND COMPLAINT DATED 10.07.2020 PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL CMM COURT, BENGALURU
PRODUCED HERETO AS ANNEXURES - A AND B.
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 Crl.P.No.5343 of 2020 3 petitioner along with one Komala Anjan, before they left the services of the respondent stolen the CRM data base, software designs, business plans and data of the Company etc., and thereafter joined another rival Company, misused the data by circulating the data 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 there was no appointment letter issued in respect of the petitioner. The petitioner was only engaged as employee of respondent No.2. It is only after the petitioner joined the services of another rival Company that the aforesaid allegations have been made, nearly after two months after her leaving the services of respondent No.2 - Company.
Crl.P.No.5343 of 20204
4. 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 rule the IPC and as such he submits that the proceedings in entirety have to be quashed, if not, offences under the IPC are to be quashed.
5. 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 Ms Komala Anjan, 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.
6. Heard Sri Ismail Muneeb Musba, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Abhinav Anand, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Crl.P.No.5343 of 20205
7. A perusal of the complaint indicate that the allegations made are as regards the theft of the CRM data base, software designs and business plan data. Sri Ismail Muneeb Musba, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no appointment letter and there is no requirement to the petitioner to maintain any confidentiality and as such if any data is taken by the petitioner there is no breach of offence which could be said to have been committed.
8. 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 the 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 employee. By its very nature the information being confidential Crl.P.No.5343 of 2020 6 merely because there was no appointment letter or agreement to maintain confidentiality would not be a ground to contend that there is no violation as regards the same even if the employee were to provide such challans to a third party.
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 is 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, such being the case whether these facts are true or not would have to be found during the course of trial. This 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 Crl.P.No.5343 of 2020 7 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.3/2020 does not survive for consideration, hence, I.A. No.3/2020 also stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SBS*