The Bombay High Court’s decision to quash the FIR against Wolfgang Prock-Schauer, former MD of Go First Airlines, underscores the Court’s strict stance on upholding evidentiary standards in cases alleging corporate misconduct. In this particular case, the allegations stemmed from claims that Prock-Schauer had transferred sensitive company data to his email and a third-party account while also wiping his company-issued iPad, leading to asserted financial losses for Go First.
During the proceedings, the Court repeatedly pressed the prosecution to substantiate its claims with concrete evidence of malicious intent or unlawful data transfer. The Court clarified that without clear evidence of intent to cause wrongful gain or inflict loss on the company, a fraud claim under the Information Technology Act or criminal breach of trust under the Indian Penal Code could not be sustained. The prosecution’s inability to present such evidence led it to withdraw the Section 408 IPC charges, instead focusing on IT Act violations, which the Court ultimately also found insufficient.
The defence argued that the documents sent to Prock-Schauer’s account were directly related to ongoing negotiations with Airbus, which were necessary for preparing presentations during official business trips. He further asserted that the information shared with his Austrian attorney was strictly for personal legal advice surrounding his resignation from the company, clarifying that there was no malicious intent.
The Court took into account that Go Airlines had previously filed a commercial suit against Prock-Schauer in February 2018. In that case, Prock-Schauer had agreed to a commitment that he would not disclose or misuse any confidential information, trade secrets, or proprietary knowledge related to the company. Recognizing this commitment as a sufficient protective measure for Go First’s interests, the Court opined that a parallel criminal prosecution was unwarranted.
In its detailed ruling, the Court highlighted the need for clarity in distinguishing between civil and criminal liabilities in corporate disputes. It underscored that, in cases involving data transfer or sensitive information, evidence of actual harm or intent to defraud is crucial to sustain criminal charges. This stance, the Court noted, aims to prevent the misuse of criminal law to settle corporate disputes or exert pressure in cases where civil remedies, such as injunctions or damages, would be more appropriate.
Ultimately, the Court’s decision to quash the FIR reflects a judicious approach, emphasizing that criminal prosecution should not be employed in situations better suited to civil litigation. By granting Prock-Schauer’s plea, the Court reinforced the principle that an accused individual must be provided with a fair trial process, safeguarded against prosecution in the absence of clear and substantive evidence of wrongdoing.
Representing Prock-Schauer, a legal team led by Advocate Niranjan Mundargi, with Advocates Keral Mehta, Savani Gupte, Lalit Munshi, and Siddhi Somani from Samvad Partners, argued the defence. Advocate Tavleen Saini, instructed by Crawford Bayley & Co, appeared on behalf of Go First, while Additional Public Prosecutor JP Yagnik represented the State of Maharashtra. The ruling serves as a reminder of the need for procedural rigour in cases involving allegations of data theft and misuse, particularly in corporate settings.
