Joseph Salvaraj A vs State Of Gujarat & Ors

2. Respondent No. 4 - complainant, Living Water Finney, lodged an FIR on 05.09.2006 at 22.15 hrs with Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad City, complaining therein that the Appellant has committed offences under Section 406, 420 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter shall be referred to as `IPC').

3. Respondent No.4 was working as Administrative Officer in "Amaaru Family Education Trust" at Ahmedabad and claimed that he has been residing Crl. A. @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2409 of 2007 2 there, leading life peacefully. He also stated that Shri Dharmendra P. Rami @ Laldbhai 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.

Thus, according to the complainant, Mr. Lalabhai (and 2 other cable operators) had agreed to broadcast, religious channel "God TV" at Ahmedabad, after the Appellant had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lacs to Mr. Lalabhai.

7. However, it appears that there was no Agreement in writing executed and entered into between Mr. Lalabhai and the Appellant. Furthermore, there has not been any Agreement between complainant and either of the aforesaid two parties. According to him, on his own, he had acted only as a mediator.

9. As mentioned hereinabove for about five months, they enjoyed watching "God TV" without any disruption but thereafter the reception signals of the said channel developed some technical snag. Thus, from October 2005, on account of poor quality of receivers, the reception was also not clear and was blurred. He once again contacted the Appellant who agreed to send receiver to the Complainant. After having received the said receiver, it was delivered to Mr. Lalabhai but as per the Complainant's version, by that time the amount of Rs. 10 lacs as agreed to between Mr. Lalabhai and the present Appellant was still not paid. Having failed to elicit a verbal response, the Complainant thereafter wrote a series of letters and sent e-mails to the Appellant, Crl. A. @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2409 of 2007 5 ultimately culminating in a notice dated 21.06.2006, to which the Appellant replied on 18.07.2006, denying all accusations and liabilities. Then the problem started and Respondent No. 4 lodged the FIR against the Appellant as mentioned hereinabove.

10.After completion of the investigation, as per the FIR lodged by the Complainant on 05.09.2006, the Appellant was arrested at Chennai for commission of the said offences on 17.11.2006. He was thus constrained to file an application under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the `Code') for grant of bail to him. The same was granted to him on the conditions mentioned in the order dated 22.11.2006.

13. We have accordingly heard Mr. Huzefa Ahmedi with Crl. A. @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2409 of 2007 7 Mr. Shamik Sanjanwala for the Appellants Ms. Jesel, for respondent No 1,2 and 3 and Ms. Aparna Bhat for respondent No.4 - Complainant at length. Perused the record.

against Appellant and Respondent No.4 both. Learned Single Judge was fully justified in rejecting the Crl. A. @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2409 of 2007 9 Appellant's Petition as it was not a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction conferred on the court under Section 482 of the CrPC. Thus, a prayer was made that no case for interference was made out and the Appeal be dismissed.

25. 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 Crl. A. @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2409 of 2007 13 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 accusation.

the Complainant. There was no cause of action to even lodge an FIR against the Appellant as neither the Complainant had to receive the money nor he was in any Crl. A. @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2409 of 2007 15 way instrumental to telecast "GOD TV" in the central areas of Ahmedabad. He appears to be totally a stranger to the same. Appellant's prosecution would only lead to his harassment and humiliation, which cannot be permitted in accordance with the principles of law.

29. Thus, looking to the matter from all angles, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution of the Appellant for commission of the alleged offences would be clear abuse of the process of law.

30. The FIR under the circumstances deserves to be quashed at the threshold. We accordingly do so. The Appeal is, therefore, allowed. The order of learned Single Judge is set aside. The FIR dated 05.09.2006 lodged by Respondent No. 4 - Complainant with Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad stands quashed and all criminal proceedings emanating therefrom also stand quashed. The parties to bear their respective costs.