Kerala High Court
Asianet Satelite Communications Ltd vs Anithakrishnadas on 11 August, 2014
Author: A.Hariprasad
Bench: A.Hariprasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/20TH SRAVANA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 1879 of 2012 ()
---------------------------
CRIME NO. 105/2012 OF PALARIVATTOMPOLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
---------------------------------------
1. ASIANET SATELITE COMMUNICATIONS LTD.
2A LEELA INFOPARK, TECHNOPARK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. UNNIKRISHNAN
DIRECTOR, ASIANET SATELITE COMMUNICATION LTD.
2A LEELA INFOPARK, TECHNOPARK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
RESIDING AT 708/B, BRINDAVAN-2, NEAR POONAM NAGAR
ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI.
3. SANKARANARAYANAN
C.E.O., ASIANET SATELITE COMMUNICATION LTD.
2A LEELA INFOPARK, TECHNOPARK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4. SASIKANTHAN
COMPANY SECRETARY
ASIANET SATELITE COMMUNICATION LTD.
2A LEELA INFOPARK, TECHNOPARK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SENIOR ADVOCATE)
SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINT & STATE:
-----------------------------------------------------------
1. ANITHAKRISHNADAS
W/O. KRISHNADAS, RESIDING ATPETRO, PENTA FLAT
KUMARANASAN ROAD, KADAVANTHARA
ELAMKULAM VILLAGE-682011.
2. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
R1 BY ADV.SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI
R1 BY ADV.SRI.T.K.SANDEEP
R1 BY ADV.SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR
R1 BY ADV.SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE(MULLAKKARIYIL)
R1 BY ADV.SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JUSTIN JACOB
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-08-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO.1879/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 105/2012 OF PALARIVATTOM
POLICE STATION ALONG WITH THE FIS.
ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF
THE BOARD OF DIRCTORS OF A1 COMPANY HELD ON 27-06-2011 AT MUMBAI.
ANNEXURE C: CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE 1ST PETITIONER COMPANYATTHEIR MEETING HELD ON
10-04-2004 ATMUMBAI.
ANNEXURE D: TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF A1 COMPANY HELD ON 24-03-2008 AT MUMBAI.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :
ANNEXURE R1(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE FRANCHISEE AGREEMENT WITH THE 1ST
PETITIONER
ANNEXURE R1(b) A PHOTOSTATCOPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE OPPOSITION LEADER
ANNEXURE R1(c) A PHOTOSTATCOPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
ANNEXURE R1(d) A PHOTOSTATCOPY OF THE DETAILED STATEMENT TO THE
KADAVANTHARA POLICE
//TRUE COPY//
A.HARIPRASAD, J.
--------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.1879 of 2012
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of August, 2014.
ORDER
Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, "Cr.P.C.").
2. Petitioners are accused in Crime No.105 of 2012 of Palarivattom Police Station. The offences alleged are punishable under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, "IPC").
3. Case revealed from Annexure-A1 first information report is the following: The defacto complainant and her husband started a cable TV net work by name 'Starmate' in the year 1991. They have purchased equipments for receiving signals from satellite. They mobilized about thousand customers in and around Kochukadavanthra, Vidhyanagar, Konduruthy and Thevara. On 03.09.1999, the defacto complainant and her husband executed an agreement with the 1st accused company whereby they transferred the entire customers to the 1st accused company on the promise that the company will pay `60/- every month per customer as franchisee share to the defacto complainant. It is the case that till June 2002, the 1st accused paid the franchisee share and thereafter, they committed a breach. It appears that disputes relating to operation of cable Crl.MC No.1879/2012 2 TV net work also arose between the parties. Therefore, the defacto complainant alleged that the accused persons have committed criminal breach of trust and cheating.
4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/defacto complainant. Learned Public Prosecutor is also heard.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that on going through the first information statement (Annexure-A1), it can be seen that none of the ingredients essential to attract the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating is mentioned therein. According to him, this is a civil dispute given a cloak of a criminal complaint. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that Annexures-R1(c) and R1(d) will show the various instances of breach of trust.
6. It is admitted that the defacto complainant had resorted to arbitration proceedings as envisaged in Annexure-R1(a) agreement executed between the defacto complainant and the 1st accused company. However, that was withdrawn at the instance of the defacto complainant. It is true that there is a dispute regarding the amounts payable by the 1st accused company to the defacto complainant. The essential ingredients for criminal breach of trust is entrustment of property by the complainant to the accused or entrustment of dominion over property and dishonest misappropriation or alienation of property by the accused for his use. None Crl.MC No.1879/2012 3 of the ingredients of this Section can be seen from Annexure-A1 complaint. In order to attract the offence of cheating as defined in Section 415 IPC, it must be specifically averred that the accused fraudulently or dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver any property thereby caused harm to him in body, mind, reputation or property. It is an admitted case, as is evident from Annexure-A1 complaint, that for a considerable length of time, the parties performed the terms of agreement and later they fell apart. There is no allegation that at the inception of the contract, the accused persons nurtured an intention to deceive the defacto complainant. Therefore, I find that the criminal prosecution is a misconceived action. However, none of the observations in this order shall affect the 1st respondent/defacto complainant to pursue her remedies before the appropriate forum.
In the result, the petition is allowed. Annexure-A1 complaint in Crime No.105 of 2012 of Palarivattom Police Station is hereby quashed.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks