2011 (7) TMI 1378 - SC - Indian Laws

Prayer for quashing of the FIR registered - Offences punishable u/s 406, 420 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') - whether cognizance of the offences could have been taken by the Competent Criminal Court in the light of the averments made by the complainant in the FIR? - HELD THAT - Bare perusal of the FIR lodged by the complainant, would indicate that he had got in touch with the Appellant so as to extend the benefit of Appellant's Channel GOD TV to his other brethren residing at Ahmedabad. For the said purposes, he had met the owner of Siti Cable, Bapi Nagar in Ahmedabad and negotiated a settlement for a sum of ₹ 10 lacs on behalf of the Appellant's Company as the fee to be paid to Siti cable by Appellant for telecast of channel God TV in Ahmedabad. Further grievance of the Complainant was that despite the telecast of GOD TV , the Appellant, as promised, failed to pay a sum of ₹ 10 lacs to the owners of Siti cables. This is what has been mentioned in nutshell in the complainant's FIR. We have grave doubt, in our mind whether on such averments and allegations, even a prima facie case of the aforesaid offences could be made out against the present Appellant. Thus, from the general conspectus of the various sections under which the Appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the Complainant's FIR. Even if the charge sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the Appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant's FIR, charge sheet, documents etc. or not. In our opinion, the matter appears to be purely civil in nature. There appears to be no cheating or a dishonest inducement for the delivery of property or breach of trust by the Appellant. The present FIR is an abuse of process of law. The purely civil dispute, is sought to be given a colour of a criminal offence to wreak vengeance against the Appellant. It does not meet the strict standard of proof required to sustain a criminal accusation. The Appellant cannot be allowed to go through the rigmarole of a criminal prosecution for long number of years, even when admittedly a civil suit has already been filed against the Appellant and Complainant-Respondent No. 4, and is still subjudice. In the said suit, the Appellant is at liberty to contest the same on grounds available to him in accordance with law as per the leave granted by Trial Court. It may also be pertinent to mention here that the complainant has not been able to show that at any material point of time there was any contract, much less any privity of contract between the Appellant and Respondent No. 4- the Complainant. There was no cause of action to even lodge an FIR against the Appellant as neither the Complainant had to receive the money nor he was in any way instrumental to telecast GOD TV in the central areas of Ahmedabad. He appears to be totally a stranger to the same. Appellant's prosecution would only lead to his harassment and humiliation, which cannot be permitted in accordance with the principles of law. Thus, looking to the matter from all angles, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution of the Appellant for commission of the alleged offences would be clear abuse of the process of law. The FIR under the circumstances deserves to be quashed at the threshold. We accordingly do so. The Appeal is, therefore, allowed. The order of learned Single Judge is set aside. The FIR dated 05.09.2006 lodged by Respondent No. 4 - Complainant with Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad stands quashed and all criminal proceedings emanating therefrom also stand quashed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Allegations of offenses under Section 406, 420, and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code in an FIR.
2. Dispute regarding non-payment of agreed sum for broadcasting "God TV" in Ahmedabad.
3. Legal challenge to quash the FIR and stay further investigation.
4. Examination of ingredients under Section 406, 420, and 506(1) of the IPC for taking cognizance.
5. Distinction between civil wrong and criminal wrong in the case.
6. Consideration of abuse of process of law and quashing of FIR.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The FIR lodged alleged offenses under Section 406, 420, and 506(1) of the IPC against the Appellant for non-payment of an agreed sum for broadcasting "God TV" in Ahmedabad. The complainant acted as a mediator in negotiating the settlement between the Appellant and the cable operator, claiming that the Appellant failed to honor the agreement, leading to the filing of the FIR.

2. The dispute centered around the non-payment of the agreed sum for broadcasting "God TV" in Ahmedabad. Despite the absence of a written agreement, the complainant asserted that the Appellant had agreed to pay a specific amount to the cable operator for the telecast. The complainant's repeated reminders and subsequent legal actions culminated in the lodging of the FIR against the Appellant.

3. The Appellant sought to quash the FIR and stay further investigation through a legal challenge. The High Court refused to entertain the petition, emphasizing that the case should be dealt with by the Trial Court. The Appellant's appeal challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that the FIR was an abuse of the legal process.

4. The court examined the ingredients under Section 406, 420, and 506(1) of the IPC to determine if cognizance of the offenses could be taken against the Appellant. The court found that the FIR did not establish a prima facie case for the alleged offenses, indicating that the matter appeared to be more of a civil dispute than a criminal offense.

5. The court distinguished between civil wrong and criminal wrong, emphasizing that the dispute in question seemed to be primarily civil in nature. Citing legal precedents, the court highlighted the need to prevent harassment in cases where a civil dispute is wrongly portrayed as a criminal offense.

6. Considering the abuse of the legal process and lack of evidence supporting the alleged offenses, the court concluded that the prosecution of the Appellant would be an abuse of law. The court quashed the FIR, setting aside the High Court's order and terminating all criminal proceedings emanating from the FIR, with each party bearing their respective costs.