SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 580

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma, JJ.
Appellants: Joseph Salvaraj A.
Vs.
Respondent: State of Gujarat and Ors.
Criminal Appeal No. 1251 of 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2409 of 2007)
Decided On: 04.07.2011

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Huzefa Ahmedi, Shamik Sanjanwala and Meenakshi Arora, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Aparna Bhat, P. Ramesh Kumar, Jesal, Advs. for Hemantika Wahi, Advs.

IMPORTANT POINT
Dispute of civil nature, given colour of criminal offence to wreak vengeance, not permissible.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal code, 1860 – Sections 406, 420 and 506 – FIR filed by complainant stating that he contacted owner of Siti cable on behalf of appellant for telecasting channel of appellant’s choice for which a charge of Rs.10 lacs was agreed – Complainant further stated that despite telecast of the channel for some months appellant did not pay the agreed amount to the Siti cable – These facts do not prima facie constitute the offences complained of – No dishonest intention is made out – FIR not showing or reflecting any threat to cause injury to person or of property – Offences charged prima facie not made out. (Para 20, 21, 23)

       (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Even if charge sheet was filed, High Court ought to have examined whether the offences were prima facie made out or not. (Para 24)

       (c) Administration of Justice – Judicial propriety – Matter appearing to be purely civil in nature – Sought to be given a colour of criminal offence to wreak vengeance – Civil suit already filed – Neither complainant had to receive the money nor he was in any way instrumental to telecast – No cause of action to lodge FIR against Appellant. (Para 25, 28)

       (2009) 7 SCC 495; 1992 (Supp) 1 SCC 335 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       FIR was lodged against the appellant for offences under sections Section 406, 420 and 506(1), IPC.

       Appellant filed petition under section 482, CrPC for quashing the FIR. However as charge sheet was already filed, his petition was dismissed.

       Finding of the Court:

       Prosecution of appellant would be abuse of the process of law.

JUDGMENT

Deepak Verma, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Respondent No. 4 - complainant, Living Water Finney, lodged an FIR on 05.09.2006 at 22.15 hrs with Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad City, complaining therein that the Appellant has committed offences under Section 406, 420 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'IPC').

3. Respondent No. 4 was working as Administrative Officer in "Amaaru Family Education Trust" at Ahmedabad and claimed that he has been residing there, leading life peacefully. He also stated that Shri Dharmendra P. Rami @ Lalbhai was running business of Siti Cable in Bapi Nagar area at Ahmedabad, was known to him for many years and both of them enjoyed good relations with each other.

4. Sometime in the year 2005, complainant had gone to Hyderabad at his wife's place where he had the occasion to watch "God TV" which influenced him deeply and profoundly touching his holy spirit. He wanted to share his experience with the Christian community of Ahmedabad so that they may also be blessed through this religious channel. On his return to Ahmedabad, he approached cable operator Mr. Lalabhai, owner of Siti Cable as mentioned above and requested him to have this channel also in the bouquet of channels offered by him. He also contacted the Appellant's Company directly, requesting it to allow broadcasting of "God TV" in certain areas of Ahmedabad through Siti Cables, Ahmedabad.

5. Eventually, with the aid and enterprise of Mr. Lalabhai, they were able to commence broadcasting of "GOD TV" in the eastern zone of Ahmedabad.

6. Initially, Mr. Lalabhai quoted Rs. 30 lacs for persuading all the three operators to commence the telecast of "GOD TV" in their respective areas in Ahmedabad but the same was settled for Rs. 10 lacs. Thus, according to the complainant, Mr. Lalabhai (and 2 other cable operators) had agreed to broadcast, religious channel "God TV" at Ahmedabad, after the Appellant had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lacs to Mr. Lalabhai.

7. However, it appears that there was no Agreement in writing executed and entered into between Mr. Lalabhai and the Appellant. Furthermore, there has not been any Agreement between complainant and either of the aforesaid two parties. According to him, on his own, he had acted only as a mediator.

8. From time to time, the Complainant kept reminding the Appellant about payment of the amount of Rs. 10 lacs to Mr. Lalabhai. But according to the Complainant, the Appellant deliberately avoided his communications. In the meanwhile, the cable operators who had started telecasting "God TV" were also pressurizing the Complainant for the said amount.

9. As mentioned hereinabove for about five months, they enjoyed watching "God TV" without any disruption but thereafter the reception signals of the said channel developed some technical snag. Thus, from October 2005, on account of poor quality of receivers, the reception was also not clear and was blurred. He once again contacted the Appellant who agreed to send receiver to the Complainant. After having received the said receiver, it was delivered to Mr. Lalabhai but as per the Complainant's version, by that time the amount of Rs. 10 lacs as agreed to between Mr. Lalabhai and the present Appellant was still not paid. Having failed to elicit a verbal response, the Complainant thereafter wrote a series of letters and sent e-mails to the Appellant, ultimately culminating in a notice dated 21.06.2006, to which the Appellant replied on 18.07.2006, denying all accusations and liabilities. Then the problem started and Respondent No. 4 lodged the FIR against the Appellant as mentioned hereinabove.

10. After completion of the investigation, as per the FIR lodged by the Complainant on 05.09.2006, the Appellant was arrested at Chennai for commission of the said offences on 17.11.2006. He was thus constrained to file an application under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Code') for grant






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top