Can Person-B Safely Switch Jobs Amidst Legal Troubles and Pending Police Verification?

Dear Cite HR, Please help a person to make a crucial decision.

Situation Overview

1) Person-A has filed an FIR against Person-B, specifying false reasons.
2) Person-B has been granted bail and has applied for the quashing of the FIR in the high court.
3) The judge has ordered a stay on police verification and attendance.
4) Currently, Person-B is freely attending his office, and the charge sheet filing is on hold.
5) Despite receiving notices several times, Person-A has not appeared before the court.

Decision-Making Dilemma

6) In this situation, can Person-B switch to another company? Is he safe regarding police verification for the new company?

Person-B belongs to State-X but is working in a company in State-Y. He needs to join another company in State-Z. Please assist Person-B in making a decision on whether he should switch companies or not.

It could also be helpful for those who can suggest if you provide timeframes—from (1) through (5)—when each stage happened and the date of the last court hearing when Person A did not appear.

Regards,
TS

Thanks, Mr. Tajsateesh. I will provide you with probable dates.

1) FIR files were lodged against Person B in January 2010.
2) A Quashing Application was submitted by Person B in March 2010.
3) Person B obtained an order to stay all police verifications and received interim relief as requested from the court. The notice was sent to the complainant.
4) Person B remained in their current office. The notice sent to the complainant was not served until June 2010, and finally served in November 2010. However, the complainant did not appear in court.
5) Person B filed an affidavit regarding the notice served and the non-appearance of the complainant despite multiple attempts.
6) Person B had around 14 hearing dates but only attended 3 hearings. The matter sequence number could not be placed on the board for the remaining times. To date, the complainant has not attended court. Person B's company is aware of all the facts, as Person B visited the complainant's office for official purposes. Person B's current organization is an Indian MNC.
7) Person B's case is robust, and they are awaiting a successful hearing.
8) Now, Person B wishes to resign from the current company and join another US MNC but is concerned about police verification. If the new company discovers Person B's case, how might they react?
9) A chargesheet against Person B is yet to be filed, as the Quash application is still pending in court.

Please provide a good idea of what Person B should do.

Thanks & Regards

I wouldn't be able to give any worthwhile LEGAL suggestion or advice, since my footing isn't in that field. But going by the facts of the situation/case you mentioned, PURELY FROM THE REALITY, PRACTICALITY & ETHICAL points of view, this is my suggestion.

Since you mentioned that 'B' is actively considering joining the US MNC, I assume 'B' has got the job—meaning 'B' has a Valid Offer in hand. I also assume 'B' hasn't told anything about the case during the course of the interview process.

You also mentioned the present Company of 'B' knows about the full facts of the case & it does 'seem' they are supportive. Please confirm if the Present Company of 'B' knows about the new Offer?

If YES, suggest 'B' go to the new Company WITH all the Case Papers & talk F2F [wouldn't recommend telecons due to the delicate nature of the topic] with the concerned HR person(s) & update them about the case & its current status. The Worst-case scenario would be: "We withdraw the Offer." With the current job still in hand, 'B' shouldn't be worried.

If NO, I would suggest that 'B' forget about the US MNC's Offer for now AND stay back in the Present Company UNTIL HIS CASE IS RESOLVED & he is exonerated. Let 'B' focus on how to expedite the Final Hearing/Ruling of the case. The reason why I am suggesting this is for 2 reasons:

1. 'B' will be better off in the Present Company—BOTH mentally & emotionally—AS LONG AS his focus is on resolving the case.

2. In the initial phases of the case [when the FIR was filed], the Present Company HAD AN OPTION of suspending or terminating 'B', but DIDN'T, like many companies do [after all who would like to get involved in police cases—whether we like/agree it or not, that's the world]. I think 'B' owes it to them that he/she is still earning & THAT MEANS A LOT in such circumstances.

Regards,
TS