MUKESH DHIRUBHAI AMBANI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr. P.C.") with a prayer to quash the proceeding in I.C.C. No. 237 of 2003 pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Panposh at Uditnagar as well as the order passed therein taking cognizance against the petitioner of the oifence under Sections 294/423/506/ 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' in short).

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present application, as have been stated in the complaint petition, are as follows : O. P. No. 2-Prafulla Kumar Mishra, an advocate of Rourkela Bar, filed the aforesaid complaint case impleading the present petitioner-Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambani, the Chairman of Reliance Infocomm, as accused No. 1, and two others, namely, Rajesh Hirwe, the Manager of Reliance Infocomm Ltd., Rourkela, and V. K. Gupta, the owner of M/s. Balajee Agencies (Telecom Division), Rourkela, as accused Nos. 2 and 3 respectively who are not parties to this case. O. P. No. 2 in the aforesaid complaint petition stated that during August, 2003 he had taken a mobile phone under a scheme launched by Reliance Infocomm, in the name and style, "Reliance India Mobile Kar Lo Duniya Mutthi Mein" by submitting application in the prescribed form along with s demand draft of Rs. 501/- and an undertaking to pay Rs. 449/- per month. The said application form along with the demand draft was submitted to accused No. 3 V. K. Gupta, owner of M/s. Balaji Agencies (Telecom Division), Rourkela, an authorized agent of Reliance Infocomm, and a handset was provided to the complainant with Mobile telephone No. 3100611. After getting the handset, the complainant started operating the same but found that local mobile service was not available in the handset for which the complainant brought the same to the notice of accused Nos. 2 and 3, who assured that the local call service would be available very soon. When the handset started giving further mechanical trouble and the same could not be operated, on 10- 9-2003 the complainant handed over the handset to accused No. 3 for repair at his counter where accused No. 2 said that the handset was to be sent to Bhubaneswar for repair. After about 12 days, the handset was given back to complainant but on the next day of receipt the handset stopped functioning. The complainant went to the counter of the authorized agent of the Reliance Infocomm and after lodging a complaint handed over the defective handset. Accused Nos. 2 and 3, who were present at the counter, assured the complainant that the handset would be repaired and returned at the earliest. As to the query of the complainant regarding accessibility of local calls, accused Nos. 2 and 3 said that the same would be provided to the complainant as well as all other customers. On 24-9-2003 when the complainant went again to the counter of accused No. 3, accused No. 2 returned the handset to the complainant with the assurance that the handset would henceforth function properly. On the next day, i.e., 25- 9-2003, the handset again stopped functioning for which the complainant immediately rushed to the counter of accused Nos. 2 and 3 and handed over the defective handset to them requesting them to replace the handset which was bluntly refused. On 29-10-2003 at about 3.15 p.m. accused No. 2 came to Rourkela Bar Association premises and requested the complainant to come to his counter for a discussion regarding the handset. Accordingly, at about 3.30 p.m. of that day the complainant along with one Balabhadra Nayak, Advocate, went to the business counter of accused Nos. 2 and 3. The accused persons asked the complainant to take back his handset which had already been repaired. As the handset was giving frequent trouble, the complainant requested accused Nos. 2 and 3 to replace the same as per the warranty. At this accused No. 2 turned violent and abused the complainant in filthy language by saying "SALA MADORCHOD, OKILATI DIKHATA HAIN HAMCO, TUMKO TO YEHI PHONE MACHINE LENA PADEGA, NAHI TO TUM YEHAN SE BHAGO". When the complainant objected to the aforesaid offending behaviour of accused No. 2, the latter gave a push to the complainant as a result of which the complainant fell down on the ground and injured. When the complainant was coming back from the counter, accused No. 2 threatened by saying "ABE OKIL AGAR TUM ISKE BARE ME JADA HALLA KAREGA AUR NAYA PHONE DEMAND KAREGA TO TUMKO JANSE MAR DENGA" and forced the complainant to take back the repaired handset. The complainant hurriedly left the counter without taking back the handset from the accused persons. During the incident, accused No. 3, who was present at the counter, encouraged and instigated accused No. 2 to commit such untoward incident. The complainant also stated that when the aforesaid incident took place Balabhadra Nayak, Advocate, who had accompanied him to the counter of the accused persons, and one Jugal Prasad Parida were present and they had witnessed the occurrence. Immediately after the aforesaid incident, the complainant along with Balabhadra Nayak, Advocate, went to Raghunathpalli Police Station and reported the matter orally to the police authority, who assured the complainant to take appropriate action in the matter. When the police did not take any action, the complainant was forced to file the aforesaid complaint case in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Panposh at Uditnagar, against accused No. 1, namely, Mukesh Ambani describing him as the Managing Director of Reliance Infocomm, as well as against accused Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Rajesh Hirwe, Manager, Reliance Infocomm Ltd., Rourkela, and V. K. Gupta, owner of M/s. Balajee Agencies, Rourkela, i.e., the authorized agent of Reliance Infocomm, respectively, who are not parties in this proceeding.

(3.) The S.D.J.M. recorded the statements of the complainant and two witnesses to the occurrence under Section 202, Cr. P.C. and found a prima facie case under Sections 294/423/506/323/34. I.P.C. against the accused persons. Accordingly by order dated 5-2-2004 the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence u/s. 294/423/506/323/34, I.P.C. against the accused persons and issued processes against them. The present application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed by accused No. 1 Mukesh Ambani on the ground that the offences of which cognizance has been taken are not made out against him, with a prayer for quashing the entire proceeding.