PARVEEN KUMAR Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four criminal petitions are filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the CrPC') by the accused persons (Crl.P.No.3447 of 2014 by A.9, Crl.P.No.7197 of 2014 by A.5, Crl.P.No.7201 of 2014 by A.8, Crl.P.No.7202 of 2014 by A.7) in C.C.No.568 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali, aggrieved by the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate and referring the private complaint filed by the 1st respondent/Defacto-Complainant, for the offences punishable under Sec. 420, 406, 468, 477, 469, 477, 341, 506, 120B and 109 of IPC, seeking to quash the proceedings in the case supra.

(2.) The private complaint with the averments supra filed citing two witnesses viz; M.Venugopal Reddy and Nagendella Harikanth reddy in support of the complaint, and placing reliance on 68 documents in all. It is there from the learned Magistrate referred the complaint for police investigation, under Sec. 156(3) of Crimial P.C. vide order dated 05.03.2012 which reads "The Complainant is present. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the case on record. The Court feels that the investigation by police is necessary in this case. Hence, this complaint is forwarded to Station House Officer, Kavali town police station for investigation and report by 12.04.2012". It is therefrom the crime is registered by the Sub Inspector of Police Town Police Station for the offence referred supra and after investigation, the police filed the final report which reads that in the television network established by the complaint along with 12 local operators namely K.C.V., out of the 12, 8 came out and established another network namely KEN and there from disputes arose between them maintaining the cable network in Kavali and both the networks are taking signals from channel plus company of Chennai, the distributor of Gemini and Teja channels, previously the complainant paid Rs.31,19,066.00 to the company for signals through decoders but the signals were stopped by the company as the complainant committed default in payments, the complainants main allegation of even he paid the amount supra for 21 months from July, 2006 to March 2008 and requested to furnish accounts and ledger statements of complainant network, but A.5 to A.9 did not provide but provided only ledger of April, 2008 and the account staff of A.5 to A.9 stated that the accused network furnished all statements of accounts as maintained to the complainant and further revealed that the network company of A.5 to A.9 shown all connections given to the complainant from July, 2006 to March, 2008 and they were never misused and when all the connections remained with the complainant network, the question of received amounts, diverted and credited to account of A.1 to A.4 does not arise and the complainant suffered no loss, when the complainant went to A.5 to A.9 net work company which is situated at Chennai, no accounts stated maintained for the payments made by him except for July, 2006 to March, 2008 , thus maintaining proper accounts arose at Chennai but not at Kavali thereby Kavali Police no territorial jurisdiction to investigate from that allegation if at all to file a complaint in concerned police station of Chennai and further investigation reveals that A.5 to A.9 as per the version of accounts staff of channel plus AP Television Network properly maintaining the accounts relating to complainant network company for his payments during the period of July, 2006 to March,2008 and also furnished the required accounts to the complainant and further stated that on 17.02.2012, A.9 was not present and he was traveling in Aircraft and the alleged threatening by A.9 of the complainant over phone of A.6 and with A.8 is not reliable to believe, further the investigation reveals that subsequent to the complaint sent by the complainant to police, on 04.04.2012 the complainant alleged that from July, 2006 to March,2008, the complainant paid for 21 months of Rs.31,91,066.00 in which period the complainant made several representations to furnish the accounts and ledger statements pertaining to the complainant Network but not provided but for only the ledger copy for the month of April, 2008 therefrom he got suspicion on A.1 to A.9 that they colluded and conspired with him and not maintaining accounts pertaining to the network or they misused the amount etc., averments of alleged misappropriation in relation to Rs.11,999.00 accounts of complainant and alleged commission of fraud in alleged diversion of the complainants network into accounts of A.1 to A.4 network by A.5 to A.9 for wrongful gain or misappropriation or for its questioning alleged threats by A.6 or A.8 or A.9 or in saying they cheated the company by non-payment of service tax to a tune of Rs.3,20,000.00 are concerned, L.W.4 who is the accountant of KEN network stated KEN network, Kavali not been maintaining account of complainant for the company no business dealings with the complainant and KCB is one of the customers network of channel Plus company of Chennai, the distributors of Gemini, Teja channels, and the complainant used to pay the amounts to Channel Plus network by signals through decoders and the complainant delayed the payments to Channel Plus company for signals for which they stopped the signals to complainant net work and later the complainant filed a petition in the year 2010 before the Telecom Disputes Settlement-cum- Appellate Tribunal( hereinafter called as Tribunal') New Delhi and the same was ended in dismissal for complainant not made payments to the company for the services availed. Even the allegation regarding not furnished the accounts he got efficacious civil remedy for rendition of accounts and there is no any element of criminal intent but for purely a civil nature of dispute, hence, filed the referred report after examining L.Ws. 1 to 4 and recording their statements and from the investigation as the dispute is of civil nature and the complaint is offshoot after Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal dismissed the petition of complainant and thereby filed the referred report.

(3.) It is therefrom on the protest application, the learned Magistrate taken cognizance by recorded the sworn statements of the complainant M.Venugopal Reddy as P.W.1 who reiterated the complaint averments and P.W.2 N. Hari Kanth Reddy, no other than son-in-law of the complainant, stated that A.1 to A.9 were causing problems to the complainant from which he filed petition before the Tribunal against Channel Plus Network and thereafter the A.1 to A.9 are harrassing him mentally by providing poor quality of signals through decoders and the complainant did business against the monopoly of A.1, A.2, A.4 and A.6 in Kavali from which they hatched a plan by taking support of A.5,A.7 to A.9 and A.5 not shown accounts to the complainant and later he shown false accounts by diverting payments made by him to the account of A.1 to A.4 and A.6 from which report given to police including DSP, Kavali and S.P. Nellore and Circle Inspector was instructed to look into the matter and on 17.02.2012 A.1 and A.2 came to their office and represented that the A.6 came to their office in Christianpet, Kavali and called the complainant to come to their office to settle the matter and another day at about 11.15A.M., the complainant and himself (P.W.2) went to the office of A.1 and A.2 where A.1 to A.4 and A.6 present who asked the complainant to withdraw the police report for which he did not agree and A.6 gave phone to the complainant saying A.8 is on line and A.8 threatened him to kill and again A.6 gave his phone saying A.9 is on line and A.9 also threatened him to harm unless he withdraw the police report from which the complainant and P.W.2 were frightened by A.1 to A.4 and A.6 even were confined by the accused persons not to leave the place by threatening to kill unless they sign on blank papers and somehow they left the place and reached town police station where a complaint is given to the Sub Inspector of Police who replied of many influential persons involved and he cannot help the complainant and it is therefrom filed the private complaint that was referred to police for investigation. This is the only material on which the learned Magistrate taken cognizance by the order which reads as:-