Prock-Schauer, who served as Managing Director until his resignation in August 2017, was accused of transferring confidential information from his official email to his personal and a third-party email during his tenure. Charges against him included criminal breach of trust under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, along with alleged violations of Sections 43(b) and 66 of the Information Technology Act.

Go First claimed he had shared sensitive data and erased his iPad, causing financial losses to the company. In response, Prock-Schauer argued that the documents he forwarded were related to negotiations with Airbus, essential for preparing official presentations during business trips. He added that any information shared with his attorney in Austria was strictly for legal consultation about his departure from the company.

The Court also noted that Go Airlines had previously filed a commercial suit in February 2018, aiming to prevent Prock-Schauer 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…”

The Court noted that this existing commitment sufficiently protected Go Airlines' interests, negating the necessity for additional criminal action. During the hearings, the Investigating Officer was urged to provide evidence substantiating the data theft allegations; however, it became clear that no concrete proof was available to show that Prock-Schauer had illegally downloaded information with fraudulent intent.

Consequently, the prosecution chose to withdraw the charges under Section 408 of the IPC, focusing instead on violations under the Information Technology Act. The Court underscored that proving fraudulent conduct requires specific evidence of intent to secure wrongful gain or impose wrongful loss, remarking, "we do not find any material to that effect."

Ultimately, the Bench concluded that the FIR did not substantiate a legitimate case against Prock-Schauer and lacked a prima facie basis for any offense. As a result, the Court quashed the FIR and accepted Prock-Schauer's plea.

Representing Prock-Schauer, Advocate Niranjan Mundargi, supported by Advocates Keral Mehta, Savani Gupte, Lalit Munshi, and Siddhi Somani, was instructed by Samvad Partners. Advocate Tavleen Saini, instructed by Crawford Bayley & Co, appeared on behalf of GoFirst, while Additional Public Prosecutor JP Yagnik represented the State.