JOSEPH SALVARAJ A. versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 8 S.C.R. 815 · Decided: 04-07-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011) 8 S.C.R. 815 
JOSEPH SALVARAJ A. 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1251 of 2011) 
JULY 4, 2011 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - FIR -
Quashing of - FIR against appellant complaining that he had 
committed offences under ss.406, 420 and 506(1) of /PC -
C 
Complainant stated that he had got in touch with the appellant 
so as to extend the benefit of Appellant's Channel "God TV" 
to his other brethren residing at Ahmedabad - For the said 
purposes, he had met the owner of Siti Cable in Ahmedabad 
and negotiated a settlement for Rs. 10 lacs on behalf of the 
D 
Appellant's Company as the fee to be paid to Siti cable by 
Appellant for telecast of channel "God TV" in Ahmedabad -
. Grievance of the Complainant that despite the telecast of 
"God TV", the Appellant, as promised, failed to pay a sum of 
Rs. 10 lacs to the owners of Siti cables - Held: The matter E 
appears to be purely civil in nature - There appears to be no 
cheating or a dishonest inducement for the delivery of property 
or breach of trust by the appellant - A purely civil dispute, is 
sought to be given a colour of a criminal offence to wreak 
vengeance against the Appellant - The case in hand does 
F 
not fall in that category where cognizance of the offence could 
have been .taken by the court, at least after having gone 
through the FIR, which discloses only a civil dispute - The 
Appellant cannot be allowed to go through the rigmarole of a 
criminal prosecution for long number of years, even when 
admittedly a civil suit has already been filed against the 
G 
Appellant and Complainant and is still subjudice - Also the 
complainant has not been able to show that at any material 
point of time there was any contract, much less any privity of 
815 
H 
816 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 8 S.C.R. 
A contract between the Appellant and Complainant - There was 
no cause of action to even lodge an FIR against the Appellant 
as neither the Complainant had to receive the money nor he 
was in any way instrumental to telecast "God TV" in the central 
areas of Ahmedabad - He appears to be totally a stranger to 
B the same - Appellant's prosecution would only lead to his 
harassment and humiliation, which cannot be permitted in 
accordance with the principles of law - The prosecution of the 
Appellant for commission of the alleged offences would be 
clear abuse of the process of law - The FIR under the 
c circumstances deserves to be quashed at the threshold and 
all criminal proceedings emanating therefrom also stand 
quashed - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.406, 420 and 506(1). 
Respondent No.4-complainant was working in 
Ahmedabad. He went to Hyderabad at his wife's place 
D where he had the occasion to watch the appellant's 
religious channel "God TV". On his return to Ahmedabad, 
he approached cable operator 'L', owner of Siti Cable and 
requested him to have this channel also in the bouquet 
of channels offered by him. He also contacted the 
E appellant's company dir.ectly, requesting it to allow 
broadcasting of "God TV" in certain areas of Ahmedabad 
through Siti Cable, Ahmedabad. Eventually, with the aid 
and enterprise of 'L', they were able to commence 
broadcasting of "God TV" in the eastern zone of 
F Ahmedabad. According to respondent no.4, 'L' (and 2 
other cable operators) had agreed to broadcast, "God 
TV" at Ahmedabad, after the appellant had agreed to pay 
a sum of Rs. 10 lacs to Mr. 'L'. However, there was no 
written agreement between Mr. 'L' and the Appellant. 
G Furthermore, there was no Agreement between 
complainant and either of the aforesaid two parties. 
According to him, on his own, he had acted only as a 
mediator. From time to time, respondent no.4 kept 
reminding the appellant about payment of the amount of 
H Rs. 10 lacs to 'L', .but the said amount as agreed to 
...; 
JOSEPH SALVARAJ A. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 
817 
ORS. 
between 'L' and the appellant remained unpaid. The 
A 
respondent no.4 ultimately sent a notice to which the 
Appellant replied, denying all accusations and liabilities. 
The Respondent No.4 therafter lodged an FIR against 
the appellant complaining therein that the appellant had 
B 
committed offences under Section 406, 420 and 506(1) of 
IPC. After completion of the investigation, as per the said 
FIR, the appellant was arrested for commission of the said 
offences. The appellant filed an application under Section 
437 of CrPC for grant of bai

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.