The Bombay High Court has recently quashed a first information report (FIR) against Wolfgang Prock-Schauer, the former Managing Director of Go First Airlines (formerly GoAir), in a data theft case [Wolfgang Prock-Schauer v. State of Maharashtra].
The Bench comprising Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande held that the case lacked sufficient evidence to proceed.
"The continuation of the proceedings against the Petitioner would be nothing short of mere procedural rigmarole," the Court added.
Prock-Schauer, who served as MD and resigned in August 2017, faced accusations of transferring confidential information from his official email to his personal account and a third party's email during his tenure.
The offences cited against him included criminal breach of trust under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code and violations of Sections 43(b) and 66 of the Information Technology Act.
Go First claimed he had not only shared sensitive data but also formatted his iPad, resulting in financial losses for the company.
In his defense, Prock-Schauer argued that the documents he sent to himself were related to negotiations with Airbus, necessary for preparing official presentations during business trips.
He also stated that he shared information with his attorney in Austria solely for legal advice regarding his exit from the company.
The Court noted that Go Airlines had already filed a commercial suit against Prock-Schauer in February 2018, seeking to restrain him from disclosing any confidential information.
It recognized this suit as a protective measure for the airline's interests, stating, “the statement made by the Petitioner, is recorded in the order dated 13/02/2018, that he shall not use and/or copy and/or publish and/or disclose to any person or persons any of the confidential information, trade secret and/or know-how pertaining to the plaintiff Company…”
This commitment effectively secured Go Airlines’ interests without the need for further criminal action, the Court noted.
During the hearings, the Court pressed the Investigating Officer for evidence supporting the data theft allegations. It became evident that no concrete evidence had been collected to prove that Prock-Schauer had unlawfully downloaded information with fraudulent intent.
The prosecution ultimately decided to abandon the charges under Section 408 of the IPC and instead focus on the Information Technology Act.
The Court highlighted that establishing a fraudulent act requires clear evidence of intent to cause wrongful gain or loss, stating, “we do not find any material to that effect.”
They concluded that the FIR did not present a valid case against Prock-Schauer and emphasized that it did not prima facie constitute any offence. Therefore, the Court quashed the same and allowed Prock-Schauer's plea.
Advocate Niranjan Mundargi, along with Advocates Keral Mehta, Savani Gupte, Lalit Munshi, Siddhi Somani instructed by Samvad Partners appeared for the petitioner, Wolfgang Prock-Schauer.
Advocate Tavleen Saini instructed by Crawford Bayley & Co appeared for GoFirst.
Additional Public Prosecutor JP Yagnik appeared for the State.
[Read Order]