JUDGMENT - CHITRE J.G., J.:---Petitioner Michael Jackson is assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Dadar Court in Criminal Complaint No. 229/S of 1996-223/Misc of 1996, whereby process has been issued against him on account of complaint filed by respondent Michael Jackson Fashion (India) Ltd. a Public Limited Company, a incorporated and registered under Companies Act, 1956, having registered office at Chandra Industrial Estate, Chandra Milan, Old Nagardas Road, Mumbai and having its Corporate Office at 26 Laxmi Bhavan, Ram Maruti Road, Dadar, Mumbai through its authorised representative Mr. S.K. Sarpotdar qua offence punishable under section 420 r/w section 120-B of India Penal Code.

2. In the said complaint, of which the learned Magistrate took cognizance, allegations have been made against the petitioner, who happens to be a world famous pop singer, that in spite of entering into an agreement, he did not permit the respondent (original complainant) to use his name for encashing the logo in commercial world. He alleged that by entering into said agreement, by giving said false promises, petitioner and his associates who have been roped in as accused in the said complaint, made complainant to part with some money and cheated him and therefore, committed an offence punishable under section 420 of Indian Penal Code. The complaint does not show any ingredients of sections 415, 420 of I.P.C. He alleged that they conspired for committing the said offence. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the said complaint and issued process against the petitioner and his associates in respect of an offence punishable under section 420 r/w section 120-B of the I.P.C. and that is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

3. Shri Sathe, Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that there is absolutely no document filed along with the complainant showing that the petitioner was really connected with the alleged transaction. He submitted that the petitioner has no concern whatsoever with complaint or complainant company. On the contrary, the lawful attorney of the petitioner company had issued a notice to Chandrakant C. Sheth, accused No. 15 in the said complaint, to stop misuse of the name of the petitioner. Shri Sathe submitted that there is absolutely no case made out by the complainant that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under section 420 r/w section 120-B of Indian Penal Code.

4. The original complainant, respondent No. 1 is absent. None is present for him since some dates of hearing prior today. Shri Saste, A.P.P. is present on behalf of the State of Maharashtra who happens to be protector of the prosecution in the Criminal Courts. This Court heard him in the interest of justice, who submitted that an appropriate order be passed as this Court deems fit.

5. In the matter of (Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another etc. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others, etc.)1, reported in 1988(2) Bom.C.R. 232. The Supreme Court has held that:

"the legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."

6. In view of these observation of the Supreme Court quoted (s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document