Prock-Schauer was charged under section 43(b) and 66 Information Technology Act in an FIR filed in 2018, at the N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station, based on a complaint by Go Airlines India Ltd.'s Deputy General Manager.

On 23rd October, 2024, the Bombay High Court, bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande, quashed a data theft case against Wolfgang Prock-Schauer, an Austrian National and the former Managing Director of Go Airlines India Ltd., stating that no offense had been established against him.

A brief summary of this case is that, the petitioner (Wolfgang Prock-Schauer), had served as the company’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and later on promotion as Managing Director until he resigned on 31st August, 2017. Although his employment agreement required six months' notice, he requested early relief, which was granted to him by the Chairman of the Company on 15th December, 2017. According to company policy, the petitioner was required to return all company devices and confidential information. However, on 18th December, 2017, the Vice President (Legal) accused him of sending confidential information from his official email to his personal email and a third-party email, as well as wiping data from his iPad.

Subsequently, on 5th February, 2018, Go Airlines filed a commercial suit seeking a restraining order to prevent him from disclosing or misusing confidential information. The FIR, filed on 8th February, 2018, at the N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station, stemmed from a complaint by Go Airlines India Ltd.'s Deputy General Manager. It was alleged that the petitioner made unilateral decisions without board consultation, downloaded and shared confidential information with external parties, and incurred financial losses for the company. As a result, he was charged under Sections 43(b) and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The petitioner subsequently sought to have the FIR quashed.

The court noted that the initial emails cited in the complaint, dated from 2016, were sent by the petitioner in his role as CEO and contained information related to sales, rental agreements, negotiation with Airbus and others, intended for official use during his travels and presentations abroad. Later emails, sent after his resignation, were shared with his attorney in Austria to seek legal advice regarding his exit from the company and did not concern company information.

The court also highlighted that, despite its repeated inquiries to the Investigating Officer, they could not produce evidence that petitioner had fraudulently or dishonestly downloaded and shared documents to benefit himself or harm the company.

“Since, the word ‘fraudulent’ has been assigned a specific meaning, which contemplate an intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person and when an act is alleged to be done fraudulently, it is only when a person is set to do a thing with an intent to defraud but not otherwise, and with this explanation appended to Section 66, we do no find any material to that effect, being received by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.” the court noted.

Hence, the Bombay High Court's bench allowed the writ petition to quashed and set aside the FIR while stating that “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 u/s 43(b) and 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000.”

Case Details: Wolfgang Prock-Schauer Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr Criminal Writ Petition No.1150 of 2018

Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv.Niranjan Mundargi, a/w Keral Mehta, Savani Gupte, Lalit

Munshi, Siddhi Somani i/b Samvad Partners

Advocate for the Respondent: Adv.Tavleen Saini i/b Crawford Bayley & Co for respondent no.2, APP J.P. Yagnik, for the State, P.I. Meghana Burande, N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station.