Granting Bail Does Not Shield Foreign Nationals from Executive Action on Visa Violations: Delhi High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Misused to Resolve Substantive Disputes or Replace Execution Mechanisms: P&H High Court Eviction Proceedings Must Follow Principles of Natural Justice: Telangana High Court Quashes Eviction Order under Senior Citizens Act Limitation Law | Sufficient Cause Cannot Be Liberally Interpreted If Negligence or Inaction Is Apparent: Gujarat High Court Mere Pendency of Lease Renewal Requests Does Not Constitute Bona Fide Dispute: Calcutta High Court Upholds Eviction Proceedings Under Public Premises Act CGST | Declaratory Nature of Safari Retreats Ruling Mandates Reassessment of Input Tax Credit Claims: Kerala High Court Changing Rules of the Game Mid-Way Violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution: Rajasthan High Court Disapproval of a Relationship Does Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide Without Direct Instigation or Mens Rea: Supreme Court Limitation Period Under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act Cannot Defeat Victim’s Right to Compensation: Gujarat High Court Maintenance To Wife Cannot Be a Precondition for Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 438 CrPC Court Cannot Rewrite Contract When Vendor Lacks Ownership of the Property: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Appeal for Specific Performance Royalty Can Be Levied on Minor Minerals Like Brick Earth, Irrespective of Land Ownership: Supreme Court Bail in Heinous Crimes Must Be Granted with Adequate Reasons and Judicial Scrutiny: Supreme Court Judicial Review in Disciplinary Cases Is Limited to Fairness, Not Reappreciation of Evidence: Supreme Court Prolonged Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Criminalized as Rape on False Promise of Marriage: Madras High Court No Interference in Judgments Without Perversity or Legal Error Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh HC

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

Similar News