MADHUSHREE DATTA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE APPEAL : By a common impugned judgment and order dtd. 31/7/2019 [impugned order], a learned Judge of the High Court of Karnataka [High Court] dismissed Criminal Petition No. 3961 of 2015 (Badrinarayana Jaganathan vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.) and Criminal Petition No. 3962 of 2015 (Madhushree Datta vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.), both filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Cr.P.C.], seeking quashing of the chargesheet filed under Sec. 173(2), Cr. PC and the entire proceedings in Case Crime No. 53073 of 2014, on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore [ACMM].

(2.) The accused appellants [appellants] - Madhushree Datta [first accused] and Badrinarayana Jaganathan [second accused] - have taken exception to the impugned order by presenting these appeals.

(3.) The proceedings before the ACMM have, as its genesis, an incident of 25/10/2013. The second respondent as complainant [complainant] lodged a complaint dtd. 26/10/2013 with the Sub-Inspector of Police, H.A.L. Police Station, Marathahalli, Bangalore, against M/s Juniper Networks India Private Limited [Company] and the appellants. The complainant asserted that she was employed as a Technical System Analyst at the Company, where she was subjected to ongoing harassment by the management. She claimed that she was coerced into resigning under duress, with the threat of immediate termination if she did not comply. Specifically, the complainant alleged that on October 25, 2013, between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., the first accused, who held the position of Human Resources Manager at the Company, demanded that the complainant resign under threat of immediate dismissal. Furthermore, the first accused, allegedly instructed the complainant not to return to work and confiscated her personal belongings, including her laptop, bag, wallet, money, credit cards et cetera. The complainant further asserted that the laptop contained proprietary intellectual property, specifically codes and other work, that she had personally created. In addition, the complainant alleged that the management ordered her removal from the premises, with security personnel escorting her out and reportedly engaging in behaviour amounting to physical harassment, assault and threatening with dire consequences.