The Bombay High Court recently annulled an FIR filed against Wolfgang Prock-Schauer, the former Managing Director of Go First Airlines. 

The ruling came from a division bench consisting of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande, following charges against Prock-Schauer for data theft. He faced accusations under Section 408 (criminal breach of trust involving property) of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Sections 43(b) and 66 of the Information Technology Act. The FIR was registered in 2018 by the NM Joshi Marg Police Station based on a complaint from Go Airlines India Pvt. Ltd.

As CEO of Go Airlines in 2015 and later promoted to MD in 2018, Prock-Schauer was obligated by company policy to return all devices and confidential information upon his departure. Allegations surfaced that he transferred confidential details from his official email to his personal email and shared them with a third party. He was also accused of formatting his iPad, which reportedly led to financial losses for the company.

Prock-Schauer contended that the documents sent to his personal email were related to sale agreements with Airbus, which he needed for preparing briefings and presentations. He further asserted that he shared his resignation documents with his attorney in Austria to obtain legal advice.

The division bench noted that Go Airlines had already initiated a commercial suit against Prock-Schauer to prevent him from disclosing, publishing, or misusing confidential information, trade secrets, and company know-how. The court observed that it made several attempts to determine whether any documents were downloaded and shared by Prock-Schauer in his capacity as CEO for personal gain. However, the Investigating Officer was unable to provide any evidence in this regard.

Consequently, the bench decided to quash the FIR, stating, “..continuation of the proceedings against the Petitioner would be nothing short of mere procedural rigmarole and therefore, we are inclined to quash and set aside the subject FIR, as it has failed to make out an offence against the petitioners under sections 43(b) and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.”