Allowed

Smt Aparna Sanjeev Khatri v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2023CRL.P/1816/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC quashing FIR registered for offences under IPC and IT Act. Court ruled that allegations against directors were baseless, no material showed wrongful loss/gain, and prosecution without arraigning the offending company violated Section 85 IT Act.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; Impugned FIR and order of ACJM quashed.

Smt Aparna Sanjeev Khatri Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:39579 CRL.P No. 1816 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1816 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. APARNA SANJEEV KHATRI, D/O TRILOKI NATH DAVE, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A NO.B 1002, SPECTRA CYPRESS, VARTHUR MAIN ROAD, KUNDANAHALLI GATE, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU – 560 066. DIRECTOR EUREKA ANALYTICAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,

¶9

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SMT. MALATHI SATPATHY, W/O SURENDRA NATH SATPATHY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A AT MINING COLONY, WARD NO.3, BARIPADA MAYUBHANJ, BARIPADABARAGARH, ORISSA – 757 001. DIRECTOR EUREKA ANALYTICAL SERVICES PVT LTD.,

¶11

SMT. GOURI SATPATHY, W/O RAHUL NEGI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NO.338, 18^TH G MAIN, 6^TH B CROSS, BEHIND POLICE STATION, KORAMANGALA 6^TH BLOCK, BANGALORE SOUTH, KORAMANGALA VI BLOCK, BENGALURU – 560 095. DIRECTOR EUREKA ANALYTICAL SERVICES PVT LTD.,

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. SANDESH J COUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. DHANUSH MENON., ADVOCATE)

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:39579 CRL.P No. 1816 of 2022

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶17

EUROFINS ANALYTICAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, THROUGH MR. SANTOSH D, S/O DAKSHINAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, ASSISTANT MANAGER – ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE AT NO.540/1, DODDANAKUNDI INDUSTRIAL AREA 2, GRAPHITE INDIA ROAD, HOODI, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU – 560 105.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.VENKATASATYANARAYAN A., HCGP FOR R1; SRI.PRADEEP NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.MIHIKA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN PCR NO.25/2022 DATED 05.01.2022 BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AND FIR DATED 24.01.2022 IN CR.NO.18/2022 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT WHITEFIELD POLICE PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE - A AND B PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (ACJM) BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.34, 406, 409, 418, 420, 471 OF IPC, 1860 AND SEC.65, 66, 72-A OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The registration of the FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 65, 66 and 72-A of the Information Technology

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39579 CRL.P No. 1816 of 2022

¶25

Act, 2000 and Sections 418, 406, 409, 420 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC is impugned in this petition.

¶26

The second respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C stating that accused No.3 was the employee of the Company, and after tendering resignation was inducted as a Director of the Eureka Analytical Services Pvt Ltd., which was incorporated on the day on which accused No.3 tendered her resignation.

¶27

The second respondent was shocked to receive a report of the testing sample from GBA which was sent by one Kevin, an ex-employee of the complainant's Company and the employee of the Eureka Analytical Services Pvt Ltd. by misusing the mail ID of the complainant. Further accused No.3 when she was in service with the complain's company has stolen the data and confidential information of the customers and accused have misused the same to cause wrongful loss to the complainant.

¶28

Learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and the police registered FIR for the aforesaid offences. Hence, this petition.

¶29

Sri. Sandesh.J.Chouta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that in the absence of any material that the petitioners as the Directors of the Company have stolen the data and confidential information etc., the

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:39579 CRL.P No. 1816 of 2022

¶32

registration of FIR only on the basis of omnibus and general allegation is impermissible. He further submits that the email was sent to the GBA for sample testing of the rice by one Kevin by wrongly mentioning the ID of the complainant-company and the same has not resulted in causing any wrongful loss to the complainant nor it has resulted in wrongful gain to the petitioners. He further submits that the order passed by the learned Magistrate referring the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is without application of mind. He further submits that the allegation in the complaint is that the petitioners as the Directors of the said company have committed the aforesaid offences and the company having not been arraigned as an accused, the petitioners cannot be held vicariously guilty, as stated under Section 85 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. He further submits the misuse of the email ID of the Company is by one Kevin, who is the employee of the Company in question and he having not been arraigned as an accused, the private complaint filed is with malice and without probable cause.

¶33

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the allegations made in the complaint discloses the commission of the cognizable offences, and the veracity of the allegations requires to be investigated, and the registration of the FIR does not warrant any interference. He further submits that once the complaint discloses the commission of cognizable offences, this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 cannot interfere with the registration of the FIR.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:39579 CRL.P No. 1816 of 2022

¶36

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶37

The email sent by one Kevin to GBA for a sample test of the rice has resulted in the second respondent filing a private complaint. A perusal of the email sent by one Kevin to GBA indicates that the same has been sent on the letter head of the Company in question and the e-mail ID of the complainant is described in the letterhead of the Company of which the petitioners are the Directors. After the sample was sent for testing, the GBA sent the report to the complainant by email, since the mail ID of the complainant was reflected in the mail sent to the GBA. Immediately noticing the mistake, Kevin who had sent the mail requested the GBA to destroy the report as the email was sent by reflecting the email ID of the complainant inadvertently. The use of e-mail ID has not resulted in either causing wrongful loss to the complainant or wrongful gain to the petitioners. Mere describing of the e-mail ID of the complainant in the mail sent on the letter head of the Company of which the petitioners are Directors cannot constitute commission of offence under Sections 66, 66 and 72A of the Information Technology Act or criminal breach of trust and cheating in the absence of any material to substantiate that the same was fraudulently used for making wrongful gain to the petitioners or for causing wrongful loss to the Company.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:39579 CRL.P No. 1816 of 2022

¶40

The allegation of committing theft of the confidential information and data of customers is not substantiated by any material, only on the omnibus and general allegations, the petitioners cannot be subjected to investigation.

¶41

Section 85 of the Information Technology Act deals with the offences by the Company, and it states that where a person committing a contravention of any of the provisions of Act or of any rule and direction or order made thereunder is a company, every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of business of the company as well as the company, shall be guilty of the contravention. In view of the specific provision contained in Section 85 of the Act, the Company having not been arraigned as an accused, the petitioners who are the Directors of the Company, cannot be held vicariously guilty in the absence of the Company, and the learned Magistrate ignoring the provisions contained in Section 85 of the Act, has referred the complaint to the police for investigation.

¶42

The order passed by the learned Magistrate without forming an opinion that there is a prima-facie case to proceed against the petitioners is one without application of mind. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings will be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:39579 CRL.P No. 1816 of 2022

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i. Criminal petition is allowed.

¶47

ii. The impugned FIR in Crime.No.18/2022 registered by the Whitefield Police Station, Bengaluru and the order dated 04.01.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate stand quashed.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Smt Aparna Sanjeev Khatri v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Aparna Sanjeev Khatri v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bonito Designs Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Santosh Kumar N Vs State of Karnataka

Nasir @ Munna Vs State of Karnataka

Ranjit Kumar Chaudhuri Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Manjunath M.S. Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Gomi @Gomee@ Gomee Shailesh Vs State by