Allahabad High Court
Dr. B. Sahu vs State Of U.P. & Another on 19 May, 2011
Bench: Shri Narayan Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
AFR
Reserved
Criminal Misc. Case No. 3994 of 2007 (U/S 482, Cr.P.C.)
Dr. B. Sahu ............Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. .............Respondents
************
Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla,J.
Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kunwar Mridul Rakesh, learned senior Advocate for the respondent no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A.
The petitioner has challenged the complaint registered as complaint case no. 4984 of 2006 as well as the order passed therein on 25th of January, 2007. The petitioner is an Executive Director and President of Futura Polyesters Limited. He recruited some Laboratory Assistant. Under the process of recruitment, six persons were interviewed out of whom four candidates namely Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Dr. Ajit Singh, Mr. Ashish Srivastava and Mr. Jay Shukla were selected. It appears that some of the employee of the respondent company has been selected in the petitioner's company. The petitioner denies from any such agreement as is entered between those selected candidates and respondent. It is further stated that if there is a violation of any agreement, that is the subject matter of civil dispute, but for that, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted. He also informs that respondent company had filed a civil suit for recovery of money against its employees i.e. Civil Suit No. 711 of 2006 and Civil Suit No. 713 of 2006. The respondent company alleges that those selected candidates have stolen the secrets formula from its Company. It is also the allegation that the petitioner is using the formula of the respondent company for his benefit to cause loss to the respondent company's business. The petitioner is alleged to have conspired along with other accused.
In reply, it is stated by the petitioner that if the allegation leveled against the petitioner is accepted maximum, the case may be of the violation of Patent Act or Copyright Act, but not to steal any secret documents or information. Therefore, the complaint as well as the summoning order passed therein deserves to be quashed. In support of his submission, he also cited a decision rendered in the case of Amarnath Bihari v. Uma Shanker reported in A.I.R. 1955 Patna 288(Vol. 42, C.N.52), in which it has been held that whether the contract dealing with the assignment of the copyrights has or has not been in fact infringed will be the subject matter of discussion in a civil suit properly constituted for that and is not relevant to the decision of criminal case on a charge under Section 489 of the Indian Penal Code.
Upon perusal of the record, I find that there is allegation to disclose the secrecy of the respondent company as well as stealing of some secret formulas, which are used by the respondent company by the selected candidates, in which the petitioner is alleged to be conspired with them, whereas I am of the view that such allegation is the subject matter of civil suit. If there is a violation of Patent Act or Copyright Act, it is open for the respondent to take necessary action therein, but once the respondent-company's employees were selected through the open recruitment by the petitioner, it cannot be said that he has committed any fraud, as alleged.
Therefore, I hereby quash the complaint case no. 4984 of 2006 as well as the order passed therein on 25th of January, 2007 pending before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Lucknow.
The petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 19.05.2011
Amit
