1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1031 OF 2009 Mr. Ananda Rao Kanthamaneni aged about 64 years, residing at 139, 12th Cross Lane, 2nd Phase, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore-560 078. .. Petitioner versus 1. The State of Maharashtra (at the instance of Shrirampur City Police Station). 2. Raman Kutti Nayar, age 58 years, occupation General Manager (Tilak Nagar Ind. Ltd.) r/of Staff Colony, Tilaknagar, Taluka Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar. .. Respondents. ------------------------------------------------------ Shri V.D. Hon, instructed by Shri V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Smt. B.R.Khekale, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. Shri N.S.Chaudhari, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ------------------------------------------------------ 2 Coram : P.R.Borkar,J. Date : 04/02/2010. ORAL JUDGMENT 01. Heard Shri V.D. Hon, learned Advocate instructed by Shri V.G. Sakolkar Advocate for the petitioners, Smt.B.R. Khekale, learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 and Shri N.S.Chaudhari,learned Advocate for Respondent no.2. 02. Rule. With consent of learned Advocates for the parties, rule made returnable forthwith and the matter is taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 03. This writ petition is filed for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report dated 5.9.2009 registered with the City Police Station, Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar under C.R. No.I-259 of 2009. 04. It is not disputed that Respondent No.2 Raman Kutti Nayar who is General Manager of Tilak Nagar Industries Ltd., Tilaknagar, Taluka Shrirampur 3 ("the said company" for the sake of brevity), has filed complaint on 5.9.2009 with the City Police Station, Shrirampur, stating that he was the General Manager of the said company. The said company is manufacturer of foreign liquor and has earned good reputation and goodwill. The said company had appointed firms, by name, "Anupama Distributors" and "Anupama Wine Distributors" belonging to the petitioner as distributors for the State of Karnataka for "Mansion House French Brandy" and "Mansion House Whisky" and other products of foreign liquor manufactured by the said company. It is further stated in the complaint that for many years, the petitioner continued to be the distributor for the said company, but subsequently joining hands with the employees of the company and without paying excise, the petitioner prepared false bills and bogus invoices and cheated the company. The company, therefore, by public notice published on 28.8.2007 in local newspapers at Bangalore, State of Karnataka, cancelled the dealership of the petitioner's firms and as such all rights as a distributor vested in petitioner came to an end. In spite of this, it was found in September 2008 that the petitioner continued to pose or represent himself as distributor of the said company 4 and in his clients' lists, there was name of the said company. The petitioner also represented that he was still distributor for "Mansion House French Brandy" and "Mansion House Whisky" manufactured by the said company. By making such false representations on website unauthorizedly, the petitioner cheated the said company of which Respondent No.2 was the General Manager. The company, therefore, filed civil suit bearing Small Cause Suit No.2405 of 2008 in the City Civil Court at Bombay which came to be decided in favour of the company on 5.8.2009. The court also reserved the right of the company to take appropriate criminal action against present petitioner. Thus, it is observed that the offences were committed by the petitioner by falsely representing himself to be the distributor of the said company on his website. 05. On the basis of the complaint, the City Police Station, Shrirampur registered offence against petitioner under Section 420 and 406 of Indian Penal Code. The copy annexed with affidavit filed by Respondent No. 2 shows that the offences were also registered under Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act 1957, as also under Section 104 and 114 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. 5 06. The petitioner in his petition does not dispute that he was the distributor for Respondent No. 2's company and that the agreement of distributorship came to an end on 24.8.2007. It is also admitted that after that date the petitioner has no more concern with the company as its distributor. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner on 25.8.2007 had instructed his engineer to delete the name of the said company and its trade logos from the website. However, it is the case of Respondent No. 2 as argued before me that in spite of such statement before the court and in spite of assurance before the city civil court, the petitioner continued to pose himself on his website to be the distributor of the said company. 07. Before we go to analysis of various offences charged, we may also consider some of the events which are stated before this court and which are relevant. On 24.8.2007, the agreement of distributorship between the petitioner and the said company was cancelled. On 21.9.2007, the petitioner gave notice of winding up to the said company. In October 2007, the petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 8311 of 2007 against the said company in the City Civil Court, Bangalore, for 6 recovery of Rs.7,31,10,153/=. In the said suit, liability of 4.21 crores was admitted by the said company. It is the case of the petitioner that in order to avoid payment of Rs.4.21 crores, the said company through present Respondent No. 2 filed the Civil Suit, in the City Civil Court, Bombay bearing Small Cause Suit No.2405 of 2008 praying for injunction restraining present petitioner from claiming that the said company has been his client or posing himself to be the distributor of the said company and from displaying trade logos and products of the said company, on his website. In the said suit, Notice of Motion No. 2 of 2008 was taken out by the plaintiff therein i.e. the said company which is represented herein by present Respondent No.2. On 18.10.2008, Advocate of the Defendant (present petitioner) made a statement at bar before the City Civil Court that the Defendant (the petitioner) had removed the name of the said company and its trade logos from his website. We find the copy of roznama produced on record along with affidavit of in reply filed by Respondent No.2 in this petition. Learned Advocates for both sides have also pointed out roznama dated 2.3.2009 which indicates that Advocate Shri Rafid Mohiddin on behalf of the present petitioner had 7 made a statement that he was going to file undertaking so that the suit could be disposed of and the Advocate for the company (plaintiff therein) conceded to the same. The court directed supply of copy of undertaking to the Advocate for the plaintiff. Again on 23.3.2009, Advocates for the parties were present, but no written statement was filed on the premise that the defendants were going to file undertaking so that on the basis of the same, the suit and the notice of motion could be disposed of. It was, therefore, directed by the court that the suit be proceeded with without written statement. On 23.3.2009, Notice of motion was adjourned to 9.4.2009 for hearing on which date it was further adjourned to 27.4.2009 and on that date it was adjourned to 29.4.2009 for orders. 8. Ultimately, on 29.4.2009, Notice of Motion came to be allowed and the present petitioner, his agents, servants or anybody on his behalf were restrained by the order of injunction till decision of the suit from displaying the name or logo or product of the said company on defendants' website at http://anuupamadistributors.com or on any other website. The defendants were also restrained from posing themselves to be the distributors of 8 plaintiff's product manufactured by the plaintiff, more particularly "Mansion House". Likewise, the defendant were also prevented from giving any link of plaintiff's company on website http:// anupamadistributors.com or on any other website till the decision of the suit. Suit came to be disposed of on 5.8.2009 under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1098, thereby confirming the said temporary injunction order. 9. Shri N.S. Chaudhari, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 pointed out paperbook pages 438 and 439 and submitted that even as on 2.9.2008, the name of the Respondent-company was displayed by petitioner as his client, so also logos and the products of the company were displayed on the website, thereby misrepresenting that the dealership continued. 10. As against the decree passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay, present petitioner and his firm M/s Anupama Distributors filed First Appeal No.1792 of 2009 along with Civil Application No. 4406 of 2009 in the High Court at Bombay. On 7.12.2009, the Court passed interim order of stay on the civil application. The copy of the said order is also produced on record 9 at paper-book page 615. It is stated in paragraph 4 of the said order, the Advocate of the appellants (present petitioner) had made a statement that the appellants had no desire whatsoever to display the logos of the respondent on their website and that the appellants had, in fact, stopped displaying the logos on their website from the very date of termination of the agreement. Thereafter, paragraph 6 of the order also referred that the appellants had shown willingness and accordingly filed undertaking in terms of the decree which was taken on record and marked "X".Consequently, Civil Application was allowed and stay was granted in terms of prayer clause (a) thereof. In other words, the undertaking was given by the present petitioner to abide by the decree passed. 11. It is case of Respondent No.2, that in spite of cancellation of distributorship and undertaking to abide by the decree, the petitioner herein continued display on his website that he has been the distributor for the said company and its products. 12. Shri N.S.Chaudhari learned counsel for Respondent No.2 cited certain authorities in support of his submissions. He first relied upon the case of 10 State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604. Paragraphs 108, 111, 114 and 117 read as follows; "108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3.Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do 11 not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizale offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an excess legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and / or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 111. Reverting to the present case, the allegations made in the complaint, in our considered opinion, do clearly constitute a cognizable offence justifying the registration of a case and an investigation thereon and this case does not fall under any one of the categories of cases formulated above calling for the exercise of extraordinary or inherent powers of the High Court to quash the F.I.R. itself. 114. No doubt, there was no love lost between Ch. Bhajan Lal and Dharam Pal. 12 Based on this strained relationship, it has been then emphatically urged by Mr. K. Parasaran that the entire allegations made in the complaint due to political vendetta are not only scurrilous and scandalous but also tainted with mala fides, vitiating the entire proceeding. As it has been repeatedly pointed out earlier the entire matter is only at a premature stage and the investigation is not yet proceeded with except some preliminary effort taken on the date of the registration of the case, that is, on 21.11.1987. The evidence has to gathered after a thorough investigation and placed before the Court on the basis of which alone the Court can come to a conclusion one way or the other on the plea of mala fides. If the allegations are bereft of truth and made maliciously, we are sure, the investigation will say so. At this stage, when there are only allegations and recriminations but no evidence, this Court cannot anticipate the result of the investigation and render a finding on the question of mala fides on the materials at present available. Therefore, we are unable to see any force in the contention that the complaint should be thrown overboard on the mere unsubstantiated plea of mala fides. Even assuming that Dharam Pal has laid the complaint only on account of his personal animosity, that by itself, will not a ground to discard the complaint containing serious allegations which have to be tested and weighed after the evidence is collected. In this connection, the following view expressed by Bhagwati, CJ in Sheonandan Paswan vs. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 288 at page 318 : (AIR 1987 SC 877 at pg.891) may be referred to: " It is a well established proposition of law that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise, justifiable and based upon adequate evidence does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or the complainant" 13 117. We have, so far, made a detailed and searching analysis on the legal issues with regard to the statutory duty of an officer- in-charge of a political station in registering the First Information Report and commencing the investigation thereon as well the principles relating to the exercise of extra-ordinary and inherent powers of the High Court in quashing either the FIR or the entire criminal proceedings as the case may be; and bearing in mind the enunciation of law, we have given our anxious consideration and careful thought to all the contentions made by all the learned counsel with considerable force and emphasis. The resultant and inescapable logical conclusion which we unreservedly arrive at is that the order of the High Court quashing the First Information Report, viewed from any angle, cannot be sustained both on the question of law and facts. Consequently, we set aside that part of the judgment of the high Court quashing the First Information Report." 13. Case of State of Karnataka vs. Pastor P. Raju AIR 2006 SC 2835, is also cited and paragraph 11 thereof relied upon wherein it is stated that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings pending in any court, but the powers should not be exercised to interfere with statutory power of police to conduct investigation in a cognizable offence. Paragraph 5 of the judgment discloses that the investigating agency had not obtained previous sanction of the Central Govt. or of the State Govt. or of the District Magistrate as 14 required by Section 196 (1-A) of Cr.P.C. and therefore it was urged before the court that the initiation of criminal proceedings against the respondent is bad in law and consequently it was liable to be quashed. The Supreme Court observed that such power could exercised during pendency of proceedings before the court and not to interfere with the statutory power of the police to conduct investigation in a cognizable offence. In that case, quashment was sought on sole ground of want of sanction which was precondition for taking cognizance of offence by the court. The circumstances in which those observations are made need to be borne in mind. 14. The next case cited by learned Advocate is Som Mittal vs.Government of Karnataka AIR 2008 S.C. 1126. In that case, it is observed that inherent power of the High Court should not be exercised according to whims and caprice and it has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. The accused was charge sheeted for offence under the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act 1962. The order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the said offence was found to be not an infirmity and, therefore, it was 15 held that the order was not liable to be interfered with by the High Court. 15. Another case relied upon by learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 is M/s Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. M/s Rajvir Industries Ltd. AIR 2008 SC 1683 (1). Learned Advocate relied upon paragraph 18 of the judgment. In the said case quashment of criminal proceedings was sought for and it was held that the question of fact or of credibility of defence raised by the accused is not be considered by the court at that stage for quashing criminal proceedings since it is a matter of evidence to be considered on trial. 16. The last case cited by learned counsel Shri N.S.Chaudhari for Respondent No.2 is Sanapreddy Maheedhar Seshagiri vs. State of A.P. AIR 2008 SC 787 (1). In paragraph 30 of the judgment, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court should be extremely cautious and slow to interfere with the investigation and/or trial of criminal cases and should not stall the investigation and/or prosecution except when it is convinced. 16 17. Coming back to the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), we will have to find out whether the present case falls under any of clause (1) to (3) of para 108 of the said case. I have already narrated the facts of the present case. It is also not disputed that so far as preparation of false bills, bogus invoices, non-payment of excise duty and thus cheating are concerned, already the matter is pending with Economic Offences Wing (EOW). This is specifically stated by the learned Advocate for Respondent No.2. The complaint does not disclose any details of offence of criminal breach of trust which is punishable under Section 406 of IPC. So, even though police have mentioned Section 406, the complaint is not regarding commission of the offence under that section. 18. So far as offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. is concerned, the offence of cheating is defined in Section 415 which reads thus: "415. Cheating. Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes 17 or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". Thus, there could have been cheating of the company or Respondent No.2 if, as a result of misrepresentation by the petitioner on his website (that he continues to be the distributor of the company even after 24.8.2007), any property was delivered or anything is done or omitted to be done. The representation, which is said to be fraudulently and dishonestly made, must have necessarily resulted in inducing somebody so deceived to deliver any property or to consent that any person shall retain the property or intentionally induced the person so deceived to do or omit to do which he otherwise would not have done or omitted if he was not deceived. It is not the case of the company or its General Manager, who is Respondent No. 2 herein that in pursuance to the representation by petitioner on his website that he is distributor for the said company, the company or any one else has done or omitted any act or delivered any property. Therefore, on the face of it, allegations before the court do not make out case of cheating. 18 19. It is argued by learned counsel Shri V.D.Hon for the petitioner that after cancellation of dealership, the petitioner could not get goods or products from the said company and consequently could not sell any product of the company and as such, the petitioner has no interest in or reason to make advertisement of the goods or products of the company by displaying them on his website or call for any orders of supply of goods manufactured by the said company. When the dealership of the petitioner is cancelled, his obligation or responsibility as a distributor to advertise and thus increase sales of goods of the company had come to an end. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no merits in the complaint and the same is filed only with a view to avoid payment of Rs.4.21 crores as per the orders of the City Civil Court, Bangalore. 20. So far as offences punishable under the Copyright Act, 1956, are concerned, a reference to Sections 51 and 63 of the Act would be useful. "51. When copyright infringed.- Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed- (a) when any person, without a licence granted by the owner of the copyright or the 19 Registrar of Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a licence so granted or of any condition imposed by a competent authority under this Act- (i) does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the owner of the copyright, or (ii) permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that such communication to the public would be an infringement of copyright; or (b) when any person- (i) makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade displays or offers for sale or hire, or (ii) distributes either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright, or (iii) by way of trade exhibits in public, or (iv) imports into India, any infringing copies of the work; Provided that nothing in sub-clause (iv) shall apply to the import of one copy of any work for the private and domestic use of the importer. "63. Offence of infringement of