IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6828/2016 BETWEEN:
MR. LAKSHMINARAYANAN S/O MR. N.S.RAMABHADRACHARYA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT No.132, SRIRANGAVIJAYAM 6TH MAIN, 3RD STREET, 2ND BLOCK NEW INCOME TAX LAYOUT, NAGARBHAVI BANGALORE-560072. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI GURUPRASAD REDDY, ADV. FOR SRI NIKHILESH RAO.M., ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION HALASURU CIRCLE, BANGALORE DISTRICT.
2. Mr. KRISHNAN C.G., DIRECTOR OF M/S. LEAD CONSULTANCY AND ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD., HAVING OFFICE AT No.40, 1ST FLLOR 10TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE-560038. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP, FOR R-1; SRI MALLIKARJUN ADV. FOR SRI R. NATARAJ, ADV. FOR R-2.) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR BEARING No.330/2016 REGISTERED BY THE INDIRANAGAR P.S., HALASURU, SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE DISTRICT, BEFORE THE I A.C.M.M., BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE-A AND ALL PROCEEDINGS IN FURTHERANCE THEREOF.
THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the records.
2. Undisputedly the petitioner herein was the Director of Lead Consultancy and Engineering Services [India] Pvt. Ltd. He tendered resignation on 01.08.2016 and the same was accepted by the Board on 30.08.2016 and he was relieved on 31.08.2016. The relieving letter – Annexure-F produced by the petitioner indicates that he was relieved subject to the realization of two post dated cheques and it was specifically observed that no other payments were due from both sides and the said cheques were issued in full settlement in all respects. The relieving letter on the face of it indicate that after satisfying itself that no dues were pending against the company, the petitioner was relieved as the Director of the second respondent company.
3. Petitioner has also produced an acknowledgement for having returned the articles taken by him from the second respondent company which is counter- signed by the concerned representative of the company. The said document is not disputed by the second respondent, which indicates that the articles namely Mack book Air 1 number, peripherals 1 set, Mack book Air case 1 number, HP inkjet printer 1 number, stapler 1, punching machine 1 and calculator 1 were handed over by him before being relieved from the company. If in fact the petitioner had retained any laptop or any other articles belonging to the company, the same could have been mentioned in the said letter and full settlement would not have been recorded in the relieving letter issued to the petitioner.
4. That being the case, on 04.09.2016, one Krishnan.C.G, Director of the second respondent filed a complaint before respondent No.1 police. In the said complaint, it was alleged as under:
“We came to know the misappropriation done by him while he was handing over the charges on 31.08.2016, the laptop which is used by him exclusively, and no other employee was authorized to use/operate for any purpose as it was under his custody. Also observed that the above-mentioned data was illegally stolen by him or deleted by him with the intention to cause huge loss to the company. The company was unable to continue the seamless service to the customers due to the loss of data. This has resulted the company to become a handicap and which has immediate business loss over 5 crores.”
5. A careful reading of the above extract indicates that the company came to know about the alleged misappropriation while handing over charge on 31.08.2016 itself. If in fact, the misappropriation had come to the notice of the second respondent on the date of handing over the charge in all probability, relieving letter would have been issued to the petitioner affirming full settlement certifying that no payments were due from both sides. In the wake of these unimpeachable documents, the allegation made in the complaint on the face of it appear to be an afterthought and are calculated to implicate the petitioner in a criminal case making false and baseless allegation that one of the laptop given to the petitioner has been retained by him.
6. The documents produced before the Court prima facie disclose that whatever articles including the laptop given to the petitioner has been returned before walking out from the company. Under the said circumstances, there was no basis for respondent No.2 to proceed against the petitioner on the purported allegation that the petitioner herein has retained the property belonging to respondent No.2 and on that account huge loss has been caused to the company. It is quite understandable as to how the Director of a company could exclusively maintain the data of the company as alleged in the complaint. The manner in which these allegations are leveled against the petitioner indicate that solely out of spite and vindictiveness criminal process is set in motive with malafide motivate. In the circumstances of the case, even assuming that the petitioner has caused any loss to the company, the same could be recovered by the company by filing civil suit. The same does not furnish a cause of action to initiate criminal action against the petitioner. The allegations made in the complaint, even if accepted as true, do not prima facie make out the ingredients of a criminal offence, much less under Sections 65, 43, 66[b], 72[A] of Information Technology Act, 2000 and under Sections 420, 408 of IPC. In that view of the matter, the criminal process initiated against the petitioner being illegal and abuse of process of Court, cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. FIR registered against the petitioner by the Indiranagar Police, Halasuru Sub-division, Bangalore District in Crime No.330/2016 and consequent investigation are quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.