MEENA DEGALA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second respondent lodged a complaint on behalf of M/s. Health trax Systems Private Limited (the company) alleging that the petitioners and others, who were employed by the company in senior positions, and who were having access to all the confidential information about products that were developed and in the processof development, had abruptly left the services of the company and formed a company by name "HDOX.COM" in July, 2002, and as per the information gathered it, came to light that the said company formed by the petitioners and others by name "HDOX.COM" is producing the very same products that were developed and/or intended to be manufactured by the company, by taking advantage of the confidential information, acquired by the petitioners as senior Executives of the company, while under an obligation of confidentiality and so petitioners are liable for punishment of the offences under Sections 406,379 and 420 IPC Sections 51, 63 63(B), 65 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 and Sections 65, 66 and 75 of Information Technology Act (the Act). The said complaint when referred by the learned Magistrate, to police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the Deputy Superintendent. ' Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, C.I.D., Hyderabad, registered the same as Crime No. 5 of 2003 under Secs. 65, 66 of the Act and took up investigation. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in the said crime No. 5 of 2003.

(2.) The contention of Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that since the F.I.R. is registered under Section 65 and 66 of the Act and since neither of those sections applies to the facts of the case, the F.I.R. is liable to be quashed. The contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent is, inasmuch as the company, which made the complaint, is not made a party to the proceedings and since the second respondent, who is different from the company, only is made a party the petition is liable to be dismissed and in any event merely because Sections 65 and 66 of the Act only are mentioned, without mentioning the other sections, the F.I.R. cannot be quashed because the allegations in the complaint, and even the documents produced by the petitioners' with the petition prima facie show theft, criminal breach of trust etc., which require investigation. It is his contention that even if not Sections 65 and 66 of the Act may not apply to the facts of the case Section 43 of the Act clearly applies to the facts of this case. In reply, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that since Sec.43 of the Act is not a pena! section, and speaks about award of damages, it relates only to civil proceedings and as such no crime can be registered under Section 43 of the Act.

(3.) The fact that police chose to register a complaint under a particular section of an enactment, and the fact that the section of law quoted in the F.I.R. does not apply to the facts of the case, by itself, cannot be a ground for quashing an F.I.R., because, it is well known that F.I.R. is intended to put the investigating agency into motion to take up investigation. Misquoting or not quoting of the appropriate section of law, as per the facts mentioned in the F.I.R., is a mistake on the part of the officer who registers the F.I.R., for which the complaint has no say. The Court while considering a petition to quash the proceedings should go by, and take into consideration, the allegations in the complaint (FIR) to find out if any cognizable offence is made out from the allegations therein or not vice versa. It would be a traversity of justice if !he F.I.R. is quashed on the ground that the offence, as per the Section of law quoted in the F.I.R., is not found in the allegations made in the complaint, though commission of cognizable offence(s) which are not covered by the Section of law quoted, is or are found from the allegations therein. That apart it is well known that if during the course of investigation, the investigating agency comes to know that apart from the offences alleged in the complaint some other offences also are committed it can file charge sheet in respect of the offence(s) which is or are not mentioned in the complaint also, and the persons who are not shown as accused in the complaint can also be made accused if their involvement in the offence comes to light. (See in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and others). Therefore, merely because commission of offences under the Section(s) of law quoted in the F.I.R. is not found from the allegations made in the complaint, the F.I.R. cannot be quashed.