Bombay High Court Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs On Man For Police Complaint Against Court Officers In Data Theft Case

The Bombay High Court has imposed costs of ₹5 lakh on a former employee for filing a “plainly vexatious” police complaint against court officers, a forensic agency, and an advocate involved in executing an order to mirror his electronic devices.

Justice Arif S. Doctor observed that the complaint was “really in the nature of a counterblast against those executing the Order of this Court”.

The court dismissed Arun Kumar Arjunan's plea to set aside an order appointing a Court Receiver and forensic expert AKS IT Services to mirror his devices and conduct a forensic analysis.

Arjunan was formerly employed by Avanse Financial Services Ltd. The dispute arose from allegations that he had transferred confidential and proprietary information belonging to the company. Avanse claimed that he had copied 2,646 files, of which 2,266 contained confidential information.

The court-appointed team began executing the order on May 26, 2026, and completed the exercise on May 29. Arjunan subsequently approached the police with allegations of illegal detention, a communication blackout, starvation, mental torture, manipulation of forensic evidence, and criminal conspiracy. He also alleged that the Court Receiver and the forensic team had colluded with Avanse to harass and frame him.

Arjunan then moved the High Court seeking dismissal of the suit and setting aside of the interim order. He argued that requiring him to disclose passwords and answer the Court Receiver's questions violated his fundamental rights under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. He also alleged that privileged communications with his advocates had been made available to the forensic auditor.

The court held that the application had to be examined within the limited scope of Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which governs the discharge, variation or setting aside of injunction orders in specified circumstances.

“What is to be seen is the substance of the Application and not the nomenclature used or provisions of law referred to therein,” the court observed.

The court found no merit in the grounds advanced to set aside the interim order. It also rejected the objection concerning service of papers under Order XXXIX Rule 3, noting that the order allowed 14 days after completion of the commission and that Arjunan was served on June 10, 2026.

The court further held that submitting confidential material in a sealed cover was a recognised practice in cases involving confidential information.

Turning to the police complaint, Justice Doctor observed that Arjunan had filed it before the Court Receiver or forensic auditor submitted their reports. The judge noted that Arjunan had shown “not even the slightest regret” over his conduct.

“If the Defendant in fact had any genuine grievance to make against the Court Receiver or the agency appointed by this Court for conducting the forensic audit, the Defendant ought to have approached this Court first,” the judge observed.

Instead, Arjunan had chosen “a path of what can only be termed as vengeance”, the court held, adding that court officers were the “eyes and ears, and the extended arm of the Court”.

The court dismissed the application and directed Arjunan to pay ₹2.5 lakh each to the Army Central Welfare Fund and the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within eight weeks. An interest rate of 8% will apply if the costs are not paid within that period.