Continuation Of Proceedings Would Be Mere Procedural Rigmarole: Bombay HC Quashes FIR Against Former Go Airlines MD In Alleged Data Theft Case
The Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR against the former Go Airlines MD in an alleged data theft case while stating that the continuation of the proceedings against him would be “nothing short of mere procedural rigmarole.”
The Court quashed the FIR under Sections 43(b) and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (the Act) against former Go Airlines India Ltd. (company) Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Managing Director (MD) Wolfgang Prock-Schauer, an Austrian national who served in the company from 2015 until his resignation in August 2017.
A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande held, “Continuation of the proceedings against the Petitioner would be nothing short of mere procedural rigmarole and therefore, we are inclined to quash and set aside the subject FIR, as it has failed to make out an offence against the petitioners u/s 43(b) and 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000.”
Advocate Niranjan Mundargi represented the petitioner, while Advocate Tavleen Saini appeared for the respondents.
The complaint was filed by the company’s Deputy General Manager alleging that the former CEO, who was entrusted with company email IDs, devices, and confidential data, had, without authorisation, transferred sensitive company information to his personal email and to a third-party recipient. This, the complainant argued, constituted an unauthorized act that breached company policy and led to potential financial loss for the airline.
On receiving the complaint, an FIR under Section 408 of the IPC and the Act were registered. However, following further investigation, the prosecution decided not to pursue charges under Section 408 IPC, choosing instead to proceed solely under the Act provisions.
During the proceedings, the Court questioned the prosecution on the nature of the data allegedly transferred by Prock-Schauer and whether any evidence substantiated a fraudulent intent to cause loss to Go Airlines. The Court noted that, according to the petitioner, emails were primarily business-related and forwarded to his email only for official use during travel, with no indication of wrongful intent. Additionally, communications sent to his attorney post-resignation pertained solely to legal advice regarding his exit, not confidential company data.
The Court explained that the word ‘fraudulent’ contemplated an intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person and when an act’s alleged to be done fraudulently, it can only be when a person was set to do a thing with an intent to defraud but not otherwise. The Bench stated that this explanation is appended to Section 66 of the Act as well.
“When we repeatedly tried to ascertain from the Investigating Officer, as to whether there are any documents, which are downloaded and subsequently shared by the Petitioner in his capacity as a CEO, and if whether there is any material collated during the course of investigation to justify that it has been fraudulently and dishonestly downloaded, with an intention to gain any advantage from the company, we are not being provided with any information to that effect, as the same is not collected,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court observed, “We fail to understand, as to how the offence under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, is made out. As we have already noted that the company from which the Petitioner sought exit has already secure its interest, by filing a Suit, which is pending for adjudication and therein the statement made by the Petitioner, is recorded…that he shall not use and/or copy and/or publish and/or disclose to any person or persons any of the confidential information, trade secret and/or knowhow pertaining to the plaintiff Company…and this statement being accepted as an undertaking to the Court, has sufficiently secured the interest of the complainant Company.”
Cause Title: Wolfgang Prock-Schauer v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:42898-DB)
Petitioner: Advocates Niranjan Mundargi, Keral Mehta, Savani Gupte, Lalit Munshi and Siddhi Somani
Respondents: Advocates Tavleen Saini; APP J.P. Yagnik