Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 26988 of 2012 =============================================== Bharti Airtel Limited (Formerly known as Bharti Cellular Ltd.) a company incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered office at Aravali Crescent, 1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi- 110070, India and Circle Office at Uday Bhawan, Marwari Awas Griha, Frazer Road, P.S.-Kotwali, District- Patna through its authorized signatory Santosh Kumar son of Sri Bhudeo Jha, resident of Mohalla Rajeev Nagar, Anand Niketan Co-operative, P.S.-Rajeev Nagar, Town & District-Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Manoj Kumar, son of Sri Rajendra Prasad Sinha, Resident of Mohalla Nadraganj, Near Sati Asthan, P.S- Civil Lines, District-Gaya. .... .... Opposite Party/s =============================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL ORDER 03. 16.10.2012 The Petitioner seeks quashing of entire proceeding including the order dated 05.11.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya in Complaint Case No. 1385/05 (Tr. No. 1346/07) by which he has taken cognizance in the matter. The case of the Complainant is that a scheme had been advertised by Airtel+Nokia as “Talk a long offer” on the purchase of selected mode of Nokia Mobile set. The purchaser was to get a free Airtel mobile connection with Airtel SIM card and Airtel to Airtel free talk time worth Rs. 50/- per Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26988 of 2012 (3) dt.16-10-2012 2 month and SMS worth Rs. 100/- per month till 19 months from the date (month) of purchase. The Accused No. 6 and 7 who were eminent personalities of India through advertisements gave an impression to the public about the genuineness of the scheme. The Complainant being so influenced by them purchased the Nokia Mobile on 21.05.2005 from Accused No. 3 which was supplied to him after approval and signature of Accused No. 2 on 25.05.2005. The Accused No. 5 further informed the Complainant that Accused No. 6 and 7 being Brand Ambassadors of Airtel Cellular Mobile had given a slogan of “Aisi Azadi aur Kahan” and the Accused No. 3 also supplied to the Complainant a Guide Book with printed photo of Accused No. 6 and a SIM Card with printed photo of Accused No. 7 in support of the said proclamation. The Accused further enumerated the advantages which had been offered to the purchasers by the company. However, when the Complainant went to recharge his mobile he learnt that the offer which had initially been given was not being honoured by them. He then sent a legal notice to the accused persons upon which the Accused No. 2 called him up to finalize the matter but made him Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26988 of 2012 (3) dt.16-10-2012 3 sign on some blank papers which were likely to be converted into valuable sureties. It has been submitted that the Petitioner is the company and under no circumstance any criminal offence is made out even accepting the allegations in the Complaint. The further submission is that the Complainant had moved the District Consumer Forum, Gaya bearing Consumer Complaint Case No. 64/2005 which was decided on 28.06.2010 against him holding that the grievances of the Complainant were not sustainable and there was no deficiency of service. Observing thus the Consumer Forum dismissed the Complaint. The next submission is that the present case appears to have been filed to settle a civil dispute with the company which is not permissible in law. The categorical submission is that the Company has not used any signed document of the Complainant and therefore his apprehension is completely unjustified. On the other hand, the counsel for the Complainant submits that a clear case of [STATUTE] is made out and an appeal has been preferred against decision of the District Consumer Forum and Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26988 of 2012 (3) dt.16-10-2012 4 hence its dismissal should not prejudice this Court in any manner. The further submission is that in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 there is direct allegation against the Petitioners wherein it has been mentioned as follows:- “09 That when the complainant came on 20/07/2005 to the shop “Sharda Fountain” of accused no. 5 and asked about further recharge, then accused no. 5 induced to get recharge this time under special offer scheme worth Rs. 3300/- and to get facilities of charged up to whole year validity i.e. valid for twelve months (one year) and there will not be necessity to get recharge month to month and accused no. 3 and 5 both said about the dedicated amount also have been charged for one year at once. 10. That accused no. 5 also get confirmed this fact from accused no. 1, 2 and 3 on mobile and after given full assurance by accused no. 1, 2 and 3, then the complainant become ready to recharge his mobile from E-recharge of Rs. 3300/-. 11. That the complainant after getting recharge twice, when on 24/07/2005 the third time went to recharge his mobile to accused no. 5, then the accused no. 5 along with accused no. 2 make to understand to complainant to take Easy recharge under the scheme which will be cover for Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26988 of 2012 (3) dt.16-10-2012 5 a period of one year along with “Talk-a-long” offer for a period of one year at once, free talk time of Rs. 50/- per month and free SMS of Rs. 100/- per month, both for a period of twelve months and that amount of Rs. 1800/- (Rs. 600/- for free Talk time and Rs. 1200/- for free SMS) will be added with the initial stage when the mobile is recharged from E-recharge of Rs. 3300/- i.e. the complainant will have a facility to talk for entire twelve month at Rs. 2994.56+Rs. 600.00 (for free Talk time)+Rs. 1200.00 (for free SMS). Having gone through the allegations and entire records, I am firmly of the view that even accepting the same no criminal offence is made out. In view of such, the application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the

Applicable IPC Section: 406

Statute Text:
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal breach of trust. Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.