HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5052 OF 2008 DATE:29.07.2010 Between: NCC Chanda …… Petitioner. And: State, rep. by the Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5052 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 405, 406, 408 and 420 IPC in C.C.No.14 of 2008 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Sangareddy, Medak District. The petitioner was in service of the 2nd respondent company during the years 1984 to 2004 and retired from service. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent company reappointed him as consultant on 15.04.2004 on contractual basis. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent company sent the petitioner to Italy and other foreign countries by spending money to learn new technologies and to adopt the same in their company. The consultancy was extended up to 31.08.2005. It is further alleged that the accused joined a company at Chennai which is a competitor to the 2nd respondent in the market and disclosed whole secrets and formulae to that company and sent letter dated 18.04.2005 for taking rest from his assignment for 35 days, indicating that his absence was planned. Not only in FIR, but also in the charge sheet, it is not stated as to when the 2nd respondent company sent the petitioner to Italy. It is also not disclosed as to what other foreign countries the accused was sent by the company. Details of the alleged company in Chennai with whom the accused is stated to have joined hands is also not disclosed. Name of that company is not disclosed. It is not disclosed as to how the said unnamed or undisclosed company was a competitor to the 2nd respondent company. It is also not disclosed as to what secrete information or what secrete formulae were conveyed by the accused to the said undisclosed company. It is conspicuously absent whether the alleged disclosures were for wrongful gain for the accused. In the absence of all the said particulars and in the absence of eliciting those particulars by the investigating officer during investigation, he cannot file the charge sheet by simply translating complaint copy into a charge sheet copy. Neither FIR nor the charge sheet disclosed any offence which is alleged in the charge sheet against the accused. It is evident that out of spite that the petitioner has left the 2nd respondent company, the 2nd respondent has initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner. As per terms of reappointment of the petitioner, he was entitled for the assignment for only six months. The 2nd respondent could not have invested huge amounts for sending the petitioner to other countries when his assignment was only for a period of six months from 15.03.2004. The alleged expenditure for sending the petitioner to other countries is also not disclosed. In the absence of all these material particulars, continuation of this case against the petitioner in the lower court amounts to harassing the petitioner by abuse of process of law. 2. In the result, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.14 of 2008 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Sangareddy, Medak District. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:29.07.2010. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5052 OF 2008 Date:29.07.2010 Gk.