Jay is a Director in Drupadi Private Limited ('DPL'). The business of the Company was mainly divided into three units manufacturing trading and consulting. The Consulting division was being managed by Jay, who was also a

The given situation is similar to the case of Ramesh Rajagopal (Appellant) vs. Devi Polymers Pvt. Ltd (Respondent) decided by the Supreme Court. The appellant was a Director in Devi Polymers Private Limited ['DPPL']. DPPL has three Units - A, B and C. Unit 'C' is being headed by the appellant. Unit 'C' primarily renders consultancy services. However, all the three Units are units of one entity i.e., DPPL. In the course of business, the appellant thought of improving the consultancy services and apparently contacted consultants, who apparently advised the creation of a separate entity known as Devi Consultancy Services and accordingly, in the web page that was created by the consultant, this name occurred. The invoices raised by the consultants were paid from the funds of DPPL, as advised by the appellant. It is significant that no amount has been paid or received by Unit C separately, independently of DDPL. The relationship being strained between the respondent and the appellant, who are relatives, several proceedings seem to have been initiated in the Company Law Board. However, in the course of disputes and the pending proceedings, the respondent initiated the instant criminal complaint against the appellant. The appellant was prosecuted by the respondent under Sections 409, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC') read with Sections 65 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000(IT Act) read with Section 120(b) of the IPC. The Supreme Court indicated that it might have been possible to attribute some criminal intent to the projection of the Unit-C as DCS in the website, if as a result of such projection, the appellant had received any amounts separate from DDPL, but a perusal of the complaint shows that this is not so. Not a single rupee has been received by the appellant in his own name or even separately in the name of Unit-C, which he is heading. All amounts have been received by DDPL. It is not possible to view the contents of the website showing the DCS as a concern which is separate from DDPL in view of the contents of the website described above. Moreover, it is not possible to impute any intent to cause damage or injury or to enter into any express or implied contract or any intent to commit fraud in the making of the said website. The appellant has not committed any act which fits the above description. Admittedly, he has not received a single rupee nor has he entered into any contract in his own name on the basis of the above website. In the absence of any act in pursuance of the website by which he has deceived any person fraudulently or dishonestly, induced any one to deliver any property to any person, we find that it is not possible to attribute any intention of cheating which is a necessary ingredient for the offence under Section 468. We find that the allegations that the appellant is guilty of an offence under the aforesaid section are inherently improbable and there is not sufficient ground of proceedings against the accused. The proceedings have been initiated against the appellant as a part of an ongoing dispute between the parties and seem to be due to a private and personal grudge. As regards the commission of offences under the Information Technology Act, 2000 the allegations are that the appellant had, with fraudulent and dishonest intention on the website of DCS i.e., www.devidcs.com that the former is a sister concern of Devi Polymers. Further, that this amounts to creating false electronic record. In view of the finding above we find that no offence is made out under Section 66 of the I.T. Act, read with Section 43. The appellant was a Director of DDPL and nothing is brought on record to show that he did not have any authority to access the computer system or the computer network of the company. That apart there is nothing on record to show the commission of offence under Section 65 of the IT Act, since the allegation is not that any computer source code has been concealed, destroyed or altered. The Court already observed that the acts of the appellant did not have any dishonest intention while considering the allegations in respect of the other offences. In the circumstances, no case is made out under Sections 65 and 66 of the I.T. Act, 2000. The Court quashed the proceedings against the appellant. In the given situation, Jay is a Director of Drupadi Private Limited. There is no allegation that any source code has been concealed, destroyed or altered. There is also no dishonest intention in creating a new entity and a website as all transactions have been routed only through Drupadi Private Limited. Going by the tenets of the Supreme Court judgement cited above, it can be concluded that the case filed against Jay may not be justified.