RANA AMITABH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the three petitioners who happen to be associated in various capacity with the Star Group of Hong-Kong, an internationally acclaimed Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, having its office at New Delhi and carries on business of distributing signals of various programmes of the Star Group to its consumers, have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to question the propriety of order dated 13.1.2005 passed by Sri Jiwan Lai, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, West Champaran at Bettiah in Complaint Case No. 2583(C) of 2003 (Trial No. 3095 of 2004) whereby cognizance under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners.

(2.) The prosecution case is based on the complaint petition filed by Brijesh Jaiswal, O.P. No. 2, herein who runs a firm in the name of his minor son in the name and style of M/s Jaiswal Entertainment Network at Narkatiaganj. It is said that an agreement was made on 28.3.2001 between the complainant and the authorised officers of the Star Television Network for three channels of the Network and the petitioners readily gave 299 connections to the complainant after deposit of quarterly fee. It has further been stated that the accused persons were mentally prepared from before to deceive and cheat the complainant and, therefore, even after the agreement had come into operation they disconnected the access to the aforesaid channels on 4.10.2001. The further case of the complainant was that when he enquired about the disconnection over telephone the accused persons sent an ante dated letter dated 20.9.2001 through registered post in the name of the complainant on 5.10.2001 which was received by him on 8.10.2001. By the aforementioned letter it had been alleged that the accused persons had demanded fee for 500 connections instead of 299 connections and the telecast was resumed only after the accused persons took Rs. 1000.00 through bank-draft. On this premise, it was submitted that the illegal act of the accused persons caused economical hardship to the complainant. It is also said that again through letter dated 1.12.2001 the accused persons directed the complainant to deposit fee of 500 cable connections and on 31.12.2001 the telecast was again stopped and was resumed on 9.2.2002. The petitioner no. 2 is said to have sent a letter to the complain-ant wherein he demanded quarterly fee for 301 connections from the complainant. The complainant is said to have visited the Patna Office and gave written application to the accused persons and requested them that the complainant be supplied only 100 connections to the consumers and as such the demand of 351- connections was not genuine. The complainant also requested them to inquire into the matter before saddling him with unnecessary cost. This appears to have infuriated the accused persons who became abusive and before the complainant was assaulted and thrown out of the office by the accused.

(3.) It appears that on the basis of the allegations a complaint case bearing No. 2597(C) of 2002 was filed and was sent to Shikarpur PS. under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. and Shikarpur PS. Case No.213 of 2002 was registered. It has also been alleged that the police was in collusion with the accused persons and, therefore, a prayer had been made by the complainant to the effect that cognizance be taken of the offence and the accused persons be put on trial. The police after due investigation submitted a final report for want of sufficient evidence and although a notice was issued to the complainant by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, he instead of appearing to contest the final report filed a fresh complaint petition by way of protest which came to be registered as Complaint Case No. 2583(C) of 2003 after three months of receipt of notice.