SUNIL BHARTI MITTAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order, dated 25th of January, 2019, passed in Complaint Case No. 1974 C of 2018, by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Patna, taking cognizance of offence under Ss. 468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, is challenged by the petitioner, who happens to be Accused No. 1 of the aforesaid Complaint Case.

(2.) This is the case of the complainant / Opposite Party No. 2, herein, that he was employed as Manager, Band-I in the CSD Department of Bharti Airtel Limited since 12th of September, 2006. As part of work of employment, the complainant had to send samples of Customer Acquisition Forms (hereinafter referred to as the ('CAFs') for verification to the TERM Cell for auditing and compliance. While working as such, the complainant found that huge malpractices were going on by the concerned officers in course of manufacturing such samples. It is alleged that the complainant was forced to do such activities on being directed by the Accused Nos. 1 to 4. When he resisted fabrication and forgery of documents in relation to the CAFs, the accused persons started to put illegal pressure on him to do such malpractices and on his refusal, he was terminated from his service. It is alleged that the Opposite Party No. 2 deliberately suppressed relevant Circulars issued by the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India and suppressing the said circulars, misguided the Trial Court to take cognizance of offence against the accused persons.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner, who happens to be the Chairman of M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd., a private limited company, engaged in Cellular Telecommunication business in India that the said company has been granted license by the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India to provide telecommunication services throughout the country. The services provided by the company is regulated under the Indian Telegraph Act. More particularly, the company has been issued license to Private Telecommunication Services for the entire country. The Department of Telecommunication, Government of India provided license to the company for telecommunication services in Bihar Telecom Circle comprising the States of Bihar and Jharkhand. As the Chairman of the company, the petitioner is responsible for determining corporate strategy and development, leadership and governance and policy developments on a global scale. Day to day work of the company are looked after by the Directors, including the Managing Directors and CEOs. The complainant/ Opposite Party No. 2 was employed with the company in Customer Service Department. Due to change in the Government's circular, business strategy and the market, the post held by the complainant became redundant and he was terminated from his service on due process of law. He applied to the company for retention, but his prayer was rejected by the company. Then only, he started to make false and frivolous allegations against the company. The witnesses on behalf of the complainant, whose initial statement was recorded by the learned Magistrate on solemn affirmation, were also terminated and voluntarily resigned.