A dispute arising out of a written agreement between parties, even if it relates to matters covered by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 or the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2009, may also constitute a criminal offense and does not bar the continuation of criminal proceedings.

Prasenjit Mandal, J:

This application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is at the instance of one of the accused persons praying for quashing the proceeding being C.R. No.92 of 2008 under Sections 420/406/120B of the I.P.C. pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mathabhanga, District – Cooch Behar.

The short fact leading to filing of this application is that the opposite party no.1 filed a petition of complaint before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathabhanga against the petitioner and other co-accused persons who are made the proforma opposite party nos.2 & 3 for offences under Sections 420/406/120B/500/501 of the I.P.C. The opposite party executed an affiliation agreement with M/s. SET Discovery Pvt. Limited now renamed as M/s. MSM Discovery Private Limited for subscription of “the One Alliance” channels in the territory comprising Mathabhanga only on 11.12.2007. The opposite party was required to pay monthly subscription of Rs.15,000/- for 18 satellite channels and for that purpose he signed the validation form. But actually the accused persons provided signals for 9 channels. The opposite party requested the accused persons to provide for the rest channels in vain. The opposite party also paid Rs.13,500/- to the accused no.1 for 9 decoder boxes. Though the opposite party paid Rs.15,000/- per month for signals and Rs.13,500/- per month for decoder boxes, the accused persons stopped signals.

Thereafter, the opposite party made several payments to the accused no.1 as per demand and those payments were made within the knowledge of the other accused persons.

The accused persons did not provide any copy of the agreement to the opposite party in spite of repeated request on the part of the opposite party. Thereafter, the accused persons published a defamatory notice involving the business of the opposite party in the newspapers, the Bartaman dated 02.04.2008 and the Telegraph dated 02.04.2008 to lower the prestige and reputation of the complainant. In spite of several payments for providing services of all the channels, the accused persons did not provide the same to the complainant. Rather they published defamatory statements. Then on 27.04.2008 the accused persons suddenly disconnected the signals of 9 channels which they provided to the complainant without assigning any reason. The opposite party no.1 paid to the accused persons a total sum of Rs.78,795/- for 18 channels but all the accused persons misappropriated the said money in furtherance of their common intention. They also induced the complainant to make payment of the above amount with a view to misappropriate the same by deceitful means. On the basis of such allegations, the opposite party filed a petition of complaint being C.R. No.92 of 2008 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathabhanga.

That petition of complaint was transferred to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mathabhanga. The learned Judicial Magistrate examined the complainant on S.A. and then on being satisfied a prima facie case against the accused persons under Section 420/406/120B of the I.P.C., issued summons upon the accused persons under the aforesaid Sections. Thereafter, the accused Dipankar Ghosh, appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate. He was granted bail and the complaint case was fixed for service return in respect of the other accused persons. At that stage, one of the accused persons namely, petitioner herein, has filed this application for quashing the said criminal proceeding against him.

Mrs. Mishra, learned Advoate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that though the complainant complained of agreement for providing 18 channels, the accused persons provided 9 channels only. Mrs. Mishra draws my attention to the paper dated 11.12.2007 appearing at page 43. Mrs. Mishra also submits that in fact, the transaction was held between the complainant and th