<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against former employees of a software company, observing that both civil and criminal proceedings cannot go together in this case.</p>.<p>The petitioners were formerly employed with Silicomp India Private Limited, earlier known as FIME India, a subsidiary of FIME SAS, a French company.</p>.<p>R Sambandham and Abhishek Chandrashekar, Directors of Payhuddle Solutions Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru, and four others had challenged the FIR registered by the city cybercrime police against them for offences of theft, cheating, criminal breach of trust, and criminal conspiracy, and under the Information Technology (IT) Act.</p>.<p>It was alleged in the complaint that after resigning and being relieved from their erstwhile company, they formed their own firm and took away confidential information relating to their previous employer and its customers.</p>.<p>The petitioners contended that data in the form of confidential information cannot constitute property as defined under the Indian Penal Code for it to become the subject of theft. They further argued that offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating cannot proceed together, and that the complaint was an act of wrecking vengeance against them for having quit the organisation, projecting a purely civil dispute as a crime.</p>.<p>On the other hand, the complainant, Silicomp India Private Limited, submitted that data or confidential information, if stolen, would undoubtedly amount to property and that the trial court had rightly taken cognisance of the same.</p>.<p>Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that it is a business rivalry between the petitioners and the complainant company, which emerged after the petitioners started their own company, the 1st defendant in the civil suit, and allegedly took away all the complainant’s customers, resulting in loss.</p>.<p>"Therefore, these factors at best could be the ingredients of a civil suit seeking damages or orders of restraint against the petitioners. The company has acted correctly, in the considered view of this court, by filing a civil suit. But the company has also chosen to set the criminal law into motion. The two cannot be considered to go hand in hand in the peculiar facts of the case," Justice Nagaprasanna said.</p>.<p>The court further said, "The offence is one of criminal breach of trust and cheating. Both the offences cannot be allowed in the case at hand. The criminal justice system should not be put into use for the purpose of recovery of money, unless the facts are glaring and make out a prima facie offence under the criminal law."</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against former employees of a software company, observing that both civil and criminal proceedings cannot go together in this case.</p>.<p>The petitioners were formerly employed with Silicomp India Private Limited, earlier known as FIME India, a subsidiary of FIME SAS, a French company.</p>.<p>R Sambandham and Abhishek Chandrashekar, Directors of Payhuddle Solutions Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru, and four others had challenged the FIR registered by the city cybercrime police against them for offences of theft, cheating, criminal breach of trust, and criminal conspiracy, and under the Information Technology (IT) Act.</p>.<p>It was alleged in the complaint that after resigning and being relieved from their erstwhile company, they formed their own firm and took away confidential information relating to their previous employer and its customers.</p>.<p>The petitioners contended that data in the form of confidential information cannot constitute property as defined under the Indian Penal Code for it to become the subject of theft. They further argued that offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating cannot proceed together, and that the complaint was an act of wrecking vengeance against them for having quit the organisation, projecting a purely civil dispute as a crime.</p>.<p>On the other hand, the complainant, Silicomp India Private Limited, submitted that data or confidential information, if stolen, would undoubtedly amount to property and that the trial court had rightly taken cognisance of the same.</p>.<p>Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that it is a business rivalry between the petitioners and the complainant company, which emerged after the petitioners started their own company, the 1st defendant in the civil suit, and allegedly took away all the complainant’s customers, resulting in loss.</p>.<p>"Therefore, these factors at best could be the ingredients of a civil suit seeking damages or orders of restraint against the petitioners. The company has acted correctly, in the considered view of this court, by filing a civil suit. But the company has also chosen to set the criminal law into motion. The two cannot be considered to go hand in hand in the peculiar facts of the case," Justice Nagaprasanna said.</p>.<p>The court further said, "The offence is one of criminal breach of trust and cheating. Both the offences cannot be allowed in the case at hand. The criminal justice system should not be put into use for the purpose of recovery of money, unless the facts are glaring and make out a prima facie offence under the criminal law."</p>