IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4787 of 2009 DATE:11.02.2011 Between: D.Krishna Vardhan and another …… Petitioners And M/s.Medplex India Pvt. Ltd., and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4787 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioners 1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 I.P.C and Sections 65 and 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The petitioners were employees of M/s.Indus Business Systems Limited with whom they entered into agreement. Subsequent to taking over of M/s.Indus Business Systems by the defacto- complainant/1st respondent, the petitioners began working under the 1st respondent also. As per the agreement and also as per law, the petitioners are obliged not to divulge confidential information which they come across during the course of employment to others. Crux of the allegation in the private complaint filed by the 1st respondent before the Magistrate which complaint was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, is as follows: “6. The complainant submits that, for the past few months, the accused have been committing various breaches of the agreement and the complainant also came to know that, the accused in collusion and in connivance with each other are transferring the data, divulging, the confidential information to third parties. The complainant as any prudent company would do, started internal investigation and through their internal investigation they came to know that, accused for extraneous reasons, have been transferring the highly protected information and confidential information to the competitors of the complainant. The accused by indulging in such illegal activities were violating the terms and conditions like Non-disclosure clauses, Non- competing clauses etc.,” The above allegation in the complaint does not disclose details of data or nature of data which is stated to have been divulged by the petitioners to third parties. There is no specific allegation to the effect to whom the so called confidential information or data was divulged by the petitioners. In the absence of details of the data or information, this Court is of the opinion that no criminal case can be booked against the petitioners. If it is done, then it would be nothing but harassing the accused who are employees of the 1st respondent. There cannot be a report of theft without describing the property stolen. In the same manner, there cannot be an offence under Section 406 or 420 I.P.C without describing the property or information entrusted to the petitioners and in respect of which the petitioners are alleged to have dishonestly dealt with. On this ground alone, the F.I.R in this case is liable to be quashed. Registration of this case on the basis of vague and uncertain allegations is nothing but abuse of process of law. 3) In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing F.I.R in Crime No.152 of 2009 of Madapur Police Station, Cyberabad. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J February 11, 2011 ksh