IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.37 of 2010 1. BIJAY AGARWAL, SON OF LATE GOPI RAM AGRAWAL 2. ANITA DEVI, WIFE OF BIJAY AGARWAL, RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA GAMITOLA, POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT KATIHAR…………………………………………………..PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KATIHAR 3. THE OFFICER INCHARGE, KATIHAR TOWN POLICE STATION, KATIHAR, DISTRICT KATIHAR 4. LALIT AGARWAL, SON OF LATE BABULAL AGRAWAL OF BARA BAZAR, KATIHAR FOR DEEPAK PODDAR, CABLE NETWORK, BINODPUR, KATIHAR ……………………………….…………RESPONDENTS ----------- 5 12.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and also learned senior counsel for respondent no.4. An F.I.R. was instituted by one Lalit Agrawal on behalf of Deepak Poddar Cable Network with the Officer Incharge, Town Police Station Katihar registered as Katihar Town P.S. Case No.390 of 2009 in which it was alleged that one Maa Tara Cable was displaying the NDTV Imagine channel to its customers without valid authorization. It was stated that for the area, Deepak Poddar Cable Network had exclusive right to display the said channel and, therefore, the act of the said Maa Tara Cable was in - 2 - violation of the provisions of the Copyright Act, Cable Television Network Regulation Act, Sale of Goods Act and the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the said F.I.R., the premise of Maa Tara Cable was raided and the relay box and other equipments in respect of NDTV Imagine Channel were seized on 09.12.2009. Petitioner no.1 is the proprietor of Maa Tara Cable and petitioner no.2 is the wife of petitioner no.1. Petitioner no.1 was made an accused in the case and case proceeded. Petitioners filed a petition for release of the seized articles on 15.12.2009 in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar. The court found that till then no seizure list had been submitted by the police. Hence, a report was called for. The police, getting infuriated on account of such petition filed by the petitioner, again raided the premises of the petitioners on 24.12.2009 and seized all other relay & receiving boxes etc. in respect of all other channels for which Maa Tara Cable was validly authorized to display. Seizure lists are annexed as Annexures 3 and 4 with the - 3 - writ application. Petitioners have filed this writ application for quashing the first information report and for restraining the respondents from taking any coercive steps against the petitioners and for release of the articles. With the writ application, petitioners have annexed an agreement with the M/s Globo Sport which firm is admittedly authorized distributor of NDTV Imagine. The agreement is dated 30.11.2009 and annexed as Annuexure-5. A further certificate from M/s Globo Sport is also annexed as Anneuxre-6. These documents show that Globo Sport had entered into agreement with M/s Maa Tara Cable, the firm of the petitioners, giving it licence to display NDTV Imagine to its customers, on payment of certain licence fee. Relying upon these two documents, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on 9.12.2009, petitioners were authorized licencee to run the channel. Therefore, first information report is bad in law and fit to be quashed. Notice was issued to respondent no. 4 on 21.01.2010 and official respondents were - 4 - restrained from taking any coercive action against petitioners. Respondent no.4 has appeared. Learned senior counsel for respondent no.4 submits that in the F.I.R. it is alleged that Maa Tara cable was displaying NDTV Imagine channel on 09.12.2009 unauthorizedly. But the allegations are also that for the last more than two months, they were displaying the channel without any licence or authorization from any quarter. In the F.IR. it has been asserted the informant’s firm, namely, Deepak Poddar Cable Network was exclusive licencee for displaying the channel in the area and, therefore, without its permission or authorization, Maa Tara Cable could not display the channel which they were doing for the last more than two months which was violative of provisions of the Copyright Act, Cable Television Network Regulation Act as well as Sale of Goods Act and the provisions of the I.P.C. However, he fairly submits that now there is some document to show that the petitioner-firm has been prima facie authorized by the Globo Sport to display the NDTV Channel. - 5 - However, he submits that the matter whether petitioners’ firm has been legally and genuinely authorized by the Globo Sport to run the NDTV on the basis of the said agreement as contained in Annexure-5 with the writ application, is a matter of enquiry which has to be done in due course by the concerned officials. Therefore, the F.I.R. cannot be quashed only on the basis of Annexures 5 and 6. Considering the facts emerging from the records of the case, this Court is of the view that the articles of the petitioners’ firm seized by the police should be immediately returned to them as they are out of business and incurring loss on day-to-day basis. Therefore, this Court directs the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar to issue necessary orders to the concerned police officials forthwith to release the seized articles of the petitioners as mentioned in Annexures-3 and 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the question with regard to the maintainability of the first information report on the ground of lack of legal authority of the informant to file the case as well as - 6 - jurisdiction of the police to entertain the first information report. He submits that under the provisions of the Cable Television Network Regulation Act, 1995 only an authorized officer can launch a prosecution and that too by filing a complaint in the court and not an F.I.R. before the police. However, in view of the immediate loss being caused to the petitioners on day-to- day basis, this writ application is being disposed of for the purpose of immediate release of the articles to the petitioners. The legal question with regard to filing of the first information report and its maintainability are left open for the petitioners to agitate at appropriate stage in the proceeding. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Let this order be communicated to the court below through FAX at the cost of the petitioners. B.T (J. N. Singh, J.)