IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: Supreme Court

Karnataka High Court Upholds FIR in Data Theft Case Against Former Employees

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Karnataka, presided over by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, has upheld the validity of the FIR (First Information Report) filed against two former employees of EOX Vantage, accused of data theft and violation of a non-disclosure agreement. The court, after considering the material on record, found that the case involved seriously disputed questions of fact and required a thorough investigation.

The FIR (Crime No. 235 of 2023) was registered by the South CEN Crime Police Station in Bengaluru on the complaint of Yuvaraj Selvaraj, Director of Conscala, a rival company established by accused No. 1. The complainant alleges that the petitioners, Naveen Kumar R and Shruthi B.S., stole sensitive data belonging to EOX Vantage’s clients and are now using it for the benefit of their new employer.

During the hearing, Sri Siji Malayil, counsel for the petitioners, contended that there was no substantial evidence to support the allegations under Sections 408, 504, 506 of the IPC or Sections 66 and 66C of the Information Technology Act. He argued that the data allegedly stolen was already in the public domain and visible on platforms like LinkedIn.

In response, Sri Arun Shyam, senior counsel representing Yuvaraj Selvaraj, asserted that the investigation was ongoing and the final report would present more compelling evidence of the alleged offenses under the IT Act. The High Court Government Pleader, Sri Mahesh Shetty, concurred with the need for a thorough investigation.

In light of the increasing menace of data theft in the digital age, the court expressed the importance of addressing such cases promptly. It found no grounds to quash the FIR, citing the serious nature of the allegations and the disputed facts surrounding the case. The court’s decision allows for further investigation into the matter.

The rejected Criminal Petition No. 3173 of 2023 has reserved liberty for the petitioners to seek appropriate remedies at the appropriate time. The ruling sends a strong message about the severity of data theft cases and the need to protect sensitive information.

Data theft has become a critical issue in today’s technology-driven world, and this case stands as a notable example of its legal implications. Organizations and employees alike are reminded of the importance of safeguarding confidential information and adhering to non-disclosure agreements to avoid potential legal consequences.

The court’s decision has undoubtedly set a precedent for similar cases and underlines the necessity of proactive measures to prevent data breaches and protect intellectual property.

Date of Decision: July 12th, 2023

NAVEEN KUMAR R @ NAVEEN vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Latest Legal News