3 days ago
Karnataka high court quashes criminal case in client data theft case
Bengaluru: Karnataka high court has quashed criminal proceedings against former employees of Silicomp India, previously known as FIME India, a French company's subsidiary, who were accused of client data theft, breach of trust and violating Information Technology Act.
Directors of Payhuddle Solutions, R Sambandham and Abhishek Chandrashekar, along with four others, contested the FIR filed by City Cyber Crime Police, which had charged them with theft, cheating, criminal breach of trust, conspiracy and violations. They disputed a trial court's order taking cognisance of the charges.
The complainant alleged that the accused, after leaving their previous employer, established their own company and "misappropriated" confidential information about the company and its clients.
The petitioners argued that confidential data cannot be classified as property under the Indian Penal Code for theft charges. They maintained that criminal breach of trust and cheating charges were incompatible, suggesting this was retaliation for their departure.
Mars Silicomp India, the complainant, maintained that stolen data or confidential information constitutes property, supporting the trial court's decision.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025
Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List
Undo
Justice M Nagaprasanna, upon reviewing the evidence, noted this was a business rivalry case, stemming from the petitioners' new venture attracting the complainant's customers.
The judge pointed out that these issues were better suited for civil litigation seeking damages or restraining orders. While the company appropriately filed a civil suit, their pursuit of criminal charges was deemed inappropriate given the circumstances.
The court emphasised that criminal proceedings should not be used for monetary recovery unless clear evidence exists of criminal offences.
Justice Nagaprasanna concluded that the case lacked elements of enticement, and the charges of criminal breach of trust and cheating were incompatible. Subsequently, the proceedings pending before the XLV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, against the petitioners were quashed.
