IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-483 of 2010 Date of decision : 16.3.2010 Ashok Chhabra …. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others …. Respondents Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Naresh Kumar Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** S.S. SARON, J. This petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case any FIR/complaint is registered or made by Umesh Gupta (respondent No.3). An alternative prayer has been made for directing the official respondents to issue two weeks’ prior notice to the petitioner in case any complaint/FIR is registered against the petitioner at the instance of Umesh Gupta (respondent No.3). Notice of motion was issued in the case and reply has been filed. According to the petitioner, he is an authorized power of attorney holder of M/s Eagle Home Entertainments Pvt. Ltd. since Crl. Misc. No. M-483 of 2010 [2] 1.1.2008. It is submitted that his job is to detect infringement/violation of copyright of films by video libraries, duplicating units or by individuals. The copy of the power of attorney dated 1.1.2008 (Annexure P1) has been placed on record. According to the petitioner, on 15.9.2008 on the basis of certain information, the petitioner came to know that one Deepak was carrying pirated and blue films CDs in his Indigo car. Information in this regard was given to the police and the car was apprehended in which the pirated film CDs were recovered. FIR (Annexure P2) was registered in this regard. On 30.9.2008, arguments on an application seeking grant of anticipatory bail by Umesh Gupta (respondent No.3) were concluded in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. When the petitioner came out from the Court room after the arguments, he was threatened by the colleagues of respondent No.3. They threatened the petitioner by saying that they had links with higher police officers and the petitioner would be implicated in some false case if he did not withdraw the case against respondent No.3 and in any case they would get the FIR cancelled from the police. The petitioner made a complaint (Annexure P3) on the same day i.e. on 30.9.2008. The application for anticipatory bail filed by respondent No.3 was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat on 3.10.2008. After dismissal of the said anticipatory bail application, it is alleged that the earlier Investigating Officer namely Ranjit Singh was suspended by the learned Additional Director General of Police, Law and Order, Haryana vide order dated 8.11.2008 (Annexure P4). However, due to the influence of Crl. Misc. No. M-483 of 2010 [3] respondent No.3, it is alleged that the petitioner is likely to be implicated in some false case. In the reply filed by Umesh Gupta (respondent No.3), it is stated that the petitioner has suppressed material facts. It is alleged that the petitioner claims that he is an authorized attorney of M/s Eagle Home Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 1.1.2008 and that he lodged FIR No.683 dated 15.9.2008 claiming to be the General Manager of M/s Northern India Copyright protection and authorized to take legal action in respect of pirated CDs by getting them seized by the police. In fact it is stated that the petitioner was a known extortionist in the VCDs/DVDs industry and there are several cases of extortion and cheating pending against him. It is submitted that the petitioner has been misusing the process of law and the allegations made by him coincide with the allegations made by the petitioner in the Transfer Petition (Crl.) No.516 of 2008 filed by him before the Supreme Court of India in which only State of Haryana was impleaded as respondent. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.3 that the said transfer petition was for transfer of the FIR No. 683 dated 15.9.2008 outside the State. The same was dismissed as withdrawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 1.5.2009 (Annexure R3/1). It is submitted that the modus operandi adopted by the petitioner has been to involve persons as accused by getting FIRs registered against them and then coerce them to pay money. Once the deal is settled then either final report is submitted by the police in the matter or no evidence is submitted in the Court. A list of eight such FIRs has been given which are registered at Police Station City Panipat, where this mode has been adopted by the petitioner. In FIR No.683 dated Crl. Misc. No. M-483 of 2010 [4] 15.9.2008 it is stated that the same was registered on the complaint of the petitioner alleging that he had received a secret information that Deepak son of Ram Kumar, a co-accused of respondent No.3, was coming from Pipli side in a Tata Indigo car carrying duplicate VCDs etc. The said accused Deepak was arrested and released on bail. Deepak it is stated had confessed in the said case that he got the CDs manufactured in the factory of Softalk at Plot No.37, DIC Industrial Area, Baddi (HP) which is owned by respondent No.3. Deepak had supplied the said CDs in Haryana. It was in pursuance of the said application (FIR) of the petitioner that the police for the first time disclosed and implicated respondent No.3 in case FIR No.683 dated 15.9.2008 at the behest of the petitioner. It is submitted that ultimately in the final report (Challan) filed by the Police, respondent No.3 has been found innocent and cited as a witness. According to the affidavit of Senior Superintendent of Police, Panipat filed in Court today, it is stated that anticipatory bail application of respondent No.3 was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat on 30.9.2008. However, the allegations regarding threats being given are denied. It is also stated that SI Ranjit Singh, the earlier Investigating Officer in the case was placed under suspension by senior officers on administrative ground and not due to lapse in the investigation of FIR No.683 dated 15.9.2008. It is also stated that no police official of District Panipat had called the petitioner in any case nor threatened him nor put any pressure on him to withdraw any complaint against respondent No.3. It is also stated that details of the investigations were submitted before the learned trial Court and there was no favoritism made to respondent No.3. No Crl. Misc. No. M-483 of 2010 [5] investigating officer was rewarded for any favour made to respondent No.3. The transfer of police officer of the rank of the Inspector was made in public interest which is a routine procedure. The final report under Section 173 CrPC of case FIR No.683 dated 15.9.2008 was prepared by the then SHO Inspector Dharamvir. It is submitted that the investigating agency had never tried to protect respondent No.3 nor ever pressurized the petitioner. The police of Police Station City Panipat had made honest investigations and whatever evidence and facts came on the file, the SHO put the challan in the Court on that basis. The allegation of threats by respondent No.3 are not in the knowledge of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Panipat. The petitioner was arrested on 17.11.2009 and the FIR No.1169 of 2009 was registered at Police Station City, Panipat as per the complaint of one Mahinder. The allegation of beating the son of the petitioner it is submitted is a concocted story. It is submitted that the blanket order of bail is not permissible under the law. As per the report of SHO, Police Station, City Panipat, there is no FIR registered against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No.3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the case involves allegations and counter allegations by the petitioner against respondent No.3 and by respondent No.3 against the petitioner. In terms of the affidavit of Senior Superintendent of Police, Panipat, it has been stated that the police is acting in an independent manner. Besides, no case is registered against the petitioner in Police Station City Panipat. It has been denied that the police is favouring respondent No.3. The case involves making of allegations and counter-allegations. Admittedly Crl. Misc. No. M-483 of 2010 [6] no case has been registered against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No.3. In the facts and circumstances, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail or for grant of a prior notice to the petitioner in case he is to be arrested in a case on the complaint of respondent No.3, is made out. Crl. Misc. petition is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE March 16, 2010 amit