Shriram Sridharan vs The State of Karnataka and Others

Rathnakala, J.—The respondent-police have registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No. 712/2013 dated 4.10.2013 in respect of offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC.

The allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner/accused while working in a company called Akaara Consulting Private Limited has illegally took over the computer hard-disc of the company on 13.4.2012. He exploited the same for the benefit of the company which he had started in the name of Aeka Consulting Private Limited. He deleted the information in the computer. Though computer is returned subsequently, the hard-disc is not returned. Thereafter, he submitted his resignation to the company, thereby committed criminal breach of trust.

Sri. H.S. Chandramouli, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint allegations read as a whole do not make out any sort of offence under Section 406 of IPC. There is a long gap from the date of alleged commission of offence and date of lodging complaint. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused under the cover of darkness took away the hard-disc system on 13.4.2012, but the complaint is lodged on 4.10.2013 without mentioning the reason for delay in lodging the complaint. The learned counsel further adds to his submission that under the guise of investigation, Investigating Officer/Police Inspector on several times called the petitioner and his wife, who is none other than the Director holding 51% of the shares in Akaara Consulting Private Limited and was satisfied that no case is made out against the petitioner under Section 406 of IPC. It is civil dispute between the parties and the Investigating Officer was about to file "B" Report to the court. The said "B" report was signed by Police Inspector. In the meantime, he is informed that the Police Commissioner has taken over the matter for further investigation. Once the file is closed, the police cannot persist to harass the petitioner under the name of reinvestigation. After "B" Report was filed to the Court and if the complainant is not satisfied, he is at liberty to record his protest to the "B" Report. The State is also at liberty to seek permission for further investigation from the concerned court. The correspondence exchanged between the complainant and accused evince that it was a civil dispute inter se between the parties only and the State has nothing to prosecute the petition.

Sri. R. Nataraj, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/complainant submits that Smt. Gayathri Shridharan, wife of the petitioner holds shares in the company. During the tenure of his employment in the company, the petitioner has violated the agreement entered into between him and the company about the confidentiality and non-disclosure and he has commenced a company by name Aeka consulting Private Limited in respect of the very same business, the complainant company is carrying on. The petitioner has contacted the clients of the main company and is selling product/software solutions to the clients claiming that he is the owner of the said software solution. PSI has no technical knowledge to investigate the present matter since it requires expertise in the IT field. After PSI notified the complaint that "B report is going to be filed, he approached the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime), Bangalore. Dissatisfied with the improper investigation carried out by PSI, the Additional Commissioner of Police has directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Banashankari Sub-Division, Bangalore to carry out further investigation in the matter. The complex question involved in the case is the offence under Section 406 of IPC and investigation cannot be scuttled at this stage.

Sri. Vijaykumar Majage, Additional SPP for the State submits that Additional Commissioner of Police (Crimes) acting under Section 36 of Cr.P.C. on finding that the investigation carried out is not satisfactory has directed Assistant Commissioner of Police, Banashankari Sub-Division, who is above the rank of PSI of the Police station to carry out further investigation. The petitioner cannot challenge the administrative action taken by the investigating agency until final report is filed before the Court.

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Banashankari Sub-Division, Bangalore is present before the Court today.

The learned prosecutor makes submission on the information given to him from the Assistant Commissioner of Police that the petitioner is not required anymore for custodial interrogation. However, the complexity of the matter requires scientific investigation and assistance of experts is required to probe further. The Assistant Commissioner of Police requires six months time to conclude the investigation.

Having regard to the submission made by the prosecution that the petitioner is not required anymore for custodial interrogation and the investigation requires assistance of experts in the IT field, I am of the considered opinion that the investigation shall proceed and reach its logical end.

With the above observation, the petition is disposed of. The State shall conclude its investigation within four months from the date of obtaining certified copy of this order.

Registry to make available the copy of this order to the learned SPP forthwith.