MUKESH D. AMBANI Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M .Cr.C. No. 486/06 filed by Mukesh D. Ambani (accused No. 1) and M.Cr.C.No. 586/06 filed by Vinod Kumar Singh (accused No.2) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity 'the Code') are being disposed of by this common order as both the petitioners have prayed for quashing of entire proceedings including the order dated 13th January 2006 passed in complaint case No. 115/06 by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur (in short 'A.C.J.M.').

(2.) COMPLAINANT / respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the learned A.C.J.M. under Sections 420, 465.,468 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code with the averment that he obtained mobile connection from-the accused persons on 29th February 2000 after depositing necessary requisite fee and the accused persons promised to extend certain services described in paragraph 3 of the complaint. After obtaining mobile connection, he enj oyed the services extended by the accused persons and regularly paid the bills raised for the same up to March 2004. However, the bill for the month of April 2004 was abnormally excessive whereupon he contacted the accused persons and tried to ascertain reasons for excessive billing and addressed written complaint for the excessive billing, but the same was never replied to and disconnection of the services was threatened in case the bills are not paid. The bill for the month of May 2004 was also abnormally exorbitant and the protest of the complainant did not invoke any response and in these circumstances, the complainant was made to pay the exorbitant bill on the threat of disconnection on 30th June 2004. Two employees of the accused persons came to the complainant and threatened disconnection if the bills are not paid and they orally informed that on the written application of the complainant there is a change in scheme under which the billing is being made and the same is being done with the written consent of the complainant, though no such written application for change in scheme was filed by the complainant nor any consent was given for the same. He lodged written report with Police Station Gol Bazar, Raipur, however, no cognizance was taken by the police. Thereafter, the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act was filed by the complainant before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Raipur (for brevity 'the Consumer Forum'). However, the Consumer Forum disposed of the complaint with an observation that there is an allegation of cheating and fraud in the application, which cannot be decided by the Consumer Forum under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act and the complainant may file complaint regarding the allegation of cheating before the competent Court. The photocopy of the alleged letter written by the complainant was filed before the Consumer Forum and original of the same is in possession of the accused persons. The complainant got examined his signature in the above document by the handwriting expert, whereupon the handwriting expert vide his report dated 20th April 2005 opined that the questioned document does not bear signature of the complainant arid thus, it is clear that the accused persons fabricated the document by forging his/signature and used the same as original with a purpose to cheat him. On the basis of above forged letter, a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was recovered from the complainant by cheating.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioner Mukesh Ambani is neither at present nor ever in the past was Chairman/Managing Director/ Director of the Reliance Telecom Ltd. and his description in the cause tile and complaint is false and misleading. Learned Magistrate without verifying the allegations in the complaint and without applying his mind to the facts of the case and law applicable thereto, directed registration of the complaint on the basis of vague and bald allegations against the petitioners. There was no material before the learned A.C.J.M. for reaching to the conclusion that the petitioners were responsible for providing mobile connection to the complainant or for issuance of alleged bills or that they were responsible for the alleged forged document, which was produced by the Reliance Telecom Ltd. in the proceedings before the Consumer Forum. On the contrary, the FIR dated 21st July 2004 filed by the complainant with the police authorities, the order of Consumer Forum dated 4.12.2004 and notice of learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 2 dated 22.12.2004 unmistakably shows that there is no allegation against the petitioners in regard to alleged offence of forgery and there is no link between the petitioners and the accusations. The complaint does not disclose any offence, however, learned A.C.J.M. has mechanically passed the impugned order and directed issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioners at the very first instance for securing their presence in violation of the provisions contained in Chapter-VI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complainant has described the petitioner Mukesh Ambani as Chairman of Reliance Telecom Ltd., however, in his statement under Section 200 of the Code this witness has stated that he knows accused Mukesh Ambani by name and at the time of incident he was Chairman of the Reliance Infocom Company whereas petitioner Vinod Kumar was Circle Head of Reliance Telecom Company Raipur. Throughout the complaint only general and omnibus allegations have been made against the petitioners under description ahhiyuktgan' without specifying any personal involvement in the alleged offence. The essential ingredients for constituting the offence under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 474 of the IPC are absent in the complaint as there is no specific averment that the petitioners made a false document with intention to cause damage to the complainant or that the petitioners committed forgery on the basis of cheating and that there is no specific allegation that the petitioners are having possession of the document in question knowing it to be forged with intention to use it as genuine. There is no specific allegation in the complaint to show that the petitioners have deceived the complainant or dishonestly or fraudulently induced the complainant to part with the payment of the allegedly inflated bills and on the contrary, there is admission of the complainant that he never met petitioner Mukesh Ambani and knew him only by his name. LEGAL SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS