TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 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 accu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a P. Rami @ Lal„bhai 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 ₹ 30 lacs for persuading all the three operators to commence the telecast of GOD TV in their respective areas in Ahmedabad but the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant, thereafter, was constrained to file the petition under Section 482 of the Code in the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, with a prayer for quashing of the FIR bearing C.R. No. I-371/2006 registered with Odhav Police Station and to stay further investigation in the case. The said application came to be considered before the learned Single Judge on 11.1.2007. By that time, charge sheet was already filed before the Competent Criminal Court. Thus, learned Single Judge, was of the opinion that it was not a fit case to be entertained and refused to hear the petition on merits, even though the Appellant was given liberty to file an application for his discharge before the Trial Court. It may be noted that even in its impugned order the learned Single Judge has emphasized that he had not considered the case on merits. Thus the Appellant's petition was dismissed and interim order granted in his favour was vacated. 12. Now the Order dated 11.01.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Appellant's Criminal Application No. 1977 of 2006, is subject matter of challenge in this Appeal. 13. We have accordingly heard Mr. Huzefa Ahmedi with Mr. Shamik Sanjanwala for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IR. 19. Even though the learned Counsel appearing for contesting parties have cited numerous authorities in support of their respective contentions, but in view of the well settled legal position of law, by long catena of cases of this Court, on this and related points, we are not dealing with each one of them separately and independently. However, the ratio and gist of these would be reflected in our order. 20. In the instant case, we have to first examine whether any of the ingredients under Section 406, 420 or 506(1) of the IPC have been made out to enable the Court to take cognizance thereof against the Appellant or not. 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 T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l accusation. 26. In such type of cases, it is necessary to draw a distinction between civil wrong and criminal wrong as has been succinctly held by this Court in Devendra v. State of U.P. 2009 (7) SCC 495, relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinbelow: A distinction must be made between a civil wrong and a criminal wrong. When dispute between the parties constitute only a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, the courts would not permit a person to be harassed although no case for taking cognizance of the offence has been made out. 27. In fact, all these questions have been elaborately discussed by this Court in the most oft-quoted judgment reported in 1992 (Supp) 1 SCC 335 State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, where seven cardinal principles have been carved out before cognizance of offences, said to have been committed, by the accused is taken. The case in hand unfortunately does not fall in that category where cognizance of the offence could have been taken by the court, at least after having gone through the F.I.R., which discloses only a civil dispute. 28. The Appellant cannot be allowed to go through the rigmarole of a criminal prosecution for long number of years, even when adm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
