Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

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