Apex Court in l) G.Sagar Suri v. State of U.pl ancl

Petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the charge sheet t"rJn on record in C.C. No. G61 of 2021 before the Learned lll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, with a photostat copy of the same' I.A. NO: 2 OF .2022 Petition under Section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumsiances stated in the l/lemorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the lligh court may be pleased to sLay all further proceedings againsi the petitioners/ltciused in c.i. No. 661 of 20'21 befcre the Learned lll Additional chief Metropolrtan Magistrate, Hyderabad. This Petition ctming on for hearing, upon ferusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of criminal retition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S Nagesh Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the sri E. Ganesh, Assistant public Proseoutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of sri Goginerri Kurpachand, Advocate for the Res6 ondent No. 2. The Court made the fcllowing: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.8108 OF 2022 ORDER: 1 This criminal petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, is fited seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.661 of 2021 on the fite of the Court of the lll Additionat Chief Metropotitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishabte under Section 420 of IPC and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 65 of the lnformation Technotogy Act, 2000. 2 The facts in brief are that the complainant is the CEO and authorized signatory of Rachana Television Pvt' Ltd., having office located at Plot No.564-A-19llll, Road No. 92, Jubitee Hilts, Hyderabad. The petitioners are running a firm under name and styte as Nord Sinew Technotogies lndia Piivate Limited having their office at No. 301 , Port Stadium Area, Green Park Colony, Balayya Sastri Layout, Seethammadara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. The second respondent herein todged a comptaint with the Banjara Potice, Hyderabad, stating that the first petitioner herein has ittegatty and unauthorisedty committed theft of the programmes that were tetecast in their channels and was ittegatty up-tinking the 2 same content tc their [ink channels in United States of America and other areas tor the last four years. Based on the above, a case in Cr.No.1.]81 of 2015 was registered for the above stat,r:d offences and invest.igatec into. During the course of investiqation, the investigating of icer apprehended the first petiti,oner, who votuntarity pteaced guitty of committing the offence atong with the second petiti tner herein. 3 During the course of investigation the first petitioner confessed that tl'e second petitioner used to take agreement from the manag,:ment of Tetugu and other channets on contract basis and used 1:o trarsmit them to America. The second petitioner entered int.o agrt:ement with Rachana Tetevision to transmit the TV Channe,ts frcm lndia to America in the year ,11011. This agreement was vvith a plan to take the signals from NTV in a clandestine way to transmit the material from Hyderab;,rd to USA. The petitioners hirve worked a plan and did not pay a single penny to Rachana Tetevision and transmitted the content of Rachana Tetevision 1.e. NW, Bhakti TV and Vanitha TV througlr internet and took tlris cortent into the hard disk. Through this hard disk they have sent the content to America under the name, of Sneha Media through their own satettite towards America. Thcugh they 3 have used this since last four years, he admitted that they have not paid any money towards Rachana Tetevision, and they were using the premises to do this streaming and converting the streaming material into the hard disk. Ori being shown by the accuied, the investigating officer seized the Hard disk namety 1) Hard Disc Seagate-3 Noi, 2) Sony DV Cam smatl cassettes, 3) Panasony mini DV-4 Nos, 4) CDs 4-Nos, and atso phone cetl phone make Lenovo with SIM 9908955899 which were used in the commission of offence and the same were seized in presence of panchas. 4 The seized material has been forwarded to FSL for analysis and the FSL authorities after analyzing the material have issued a report vide COM/45 12016 dated 05.07.2018 in which he stated as fotlows: 1) ltem'Nos.1 to 3 are not accessibte to the toots / software present in TSFSL. Hence they coutd not be analyzed. 2l ltem Nos.4 to 7 are in working condition.

2.1) ltem Nos. 4 to 7 contained several video files in "-rm" file format. I have viewed some of these video files and found "SNEHA TELEVISION" togo & "HAVINA ENTERPRISES CREATIONS" in the beginning of each video. I have captured three screenshots from one of these videos and furnished in hard copy marked by me as "ANNEXURE-l COM{45/2016". 4 3) Lenovo mobile phone ltem No.8 is passwordrpatterrt protecl.ed. Hence data coutd not be retrieved from the phone memory with the existing tools /software's prr:sent in TSFSL.

3.1) tlonter,ts retrieved from two Airtet SIM Cards of item No.8 etre furnished in Hard copy marked by me as "ANNEXURE- I I COM/ 45 / 701 6" . 5 Basing on the above contentions / allegations, Sri S.Nagesh Reddy, the tearnr:d counsel for the petitioners, submitt,:]d that the second re:;ponde ,nt herein todged the comptaint ar3ainst the petitioners sotety with the intention to settle personal :;cores with them and attempted to convert a purely civit dispute arsing out of a contractlJal ag'eement into a criminal case. The cr)nfessional statement obtained by the potice is inadmissibl.e in [aw. He further submitted that since the offence attegedty took place at Visakhapatnam, the courts at Hyderabad have no juri:;diction to take cognizance of the offence. lt is his further conte,ntion that the materiaI seize'd by the investigating officer, on anat\rsis by the FSL authorities, woutd go to show that the same were not accessibte ind hence their alteged contents could not be anatyzed. Despite the said fact, the potice fited the charge sheet by stating that the hard disks attegedty seized from the first petitirlner were used to transmit the content of Rachana Television pv1:. Ltd, to USA, which attegation was not supported by any substantial 5 evidence. 6 The learned counse[ for the petitioners further submitted that there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioners herein dishonestty induced the second respondent to detiver any property to them. Hence the offence under Section 420 lpC does not attract. 7 He further submitted that neither in the comptaint nor in the charge sheet is there any altegation made against the petitioners that they have either knowingty or intentionaIty conceated, destroyed or attered any computer source code. He further submitted that there is no evidence to show that the petitioners have knowingty infringed or abetted the infringement of the copyright in any work for being punished under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Hence he prayed to attow the criminat l petition and quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 8 ln support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed retiance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble 6 Apex Court in l) G.Sagar Suri vs. State of U.pl ancl 2) Hridaya Ranjan Prasad \/erma vs. State of Bihar2. 9 On the otrer hand, the learned Assistant pubtic prosecutor submitted that the second petitioner takes agreement from the managemr:nt of Tetugu and other channels on corrtract basis depend upon thr: agreement. The petitioners hatched a ptan and started downloa,Jing the signat without any permission from the proprietor:; of :he channets. ln the same way, they made agreement with Rachana Television, but the agreement was not futfitted arrd the amount was atso not paid to the c()mplainant company. I-his ag-eement was made with an intention to chg31 16. complainant coml)any and steal the contents of the brrtadcasting by infringing the copy right act and transmitted the c()ntents of Rachana Ter.ev,siorr i.e. NW, Bhakti w and Vanitha TV cr:ntents to USA- The se,:ond petitioner is running sneha Media in US/ and used these contetrts of transmission in USA without any permission and used the content lrom 2011 to 2015. For this purpose, the second petitioner kr:pt thr: first petitioner at Visakhapatnam office with required infrastructure and the contents of Rachana Tetevision broadcast thr.ough internet and downloaded into the h ard disks. ' lzoooy z scc o:a ' (2ooo) 4 scc 168 7 Through this hard disk the contents were sent to USA throggh satetlite of Sneha Media and getting huge profits. The petitioners have created this office with a view to cheat the tetevision network i.e. Rachana Tetevision and madd breach of agreement. Hence it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners since truth or otherwise in the comptaint woutd come to tight only upon a thorough enquiry / triat. Hence he prayed to dismiss the petition. ln support of his contentions, the [earned Assistant Public Prosecutor retied on the decision of this Court in Subhodaya Digital Entertainment (P) Ltd, Hyderabad vs. State of Telangana3. 10 lt is the case of the prosecution that the first petitioner confessed that they committed the atleged offence. But the said confession is inadmissible in law as per.Section 25 of the lndian Evidence Act. {oreover, the materia[ seized by the investigating officer, on anatysis by the FSL authorities, would go to show that the same were not accessibte and hence their atteged contents coutd not be analyzed and the FSL authorities after analyzing the material have issued a report vide COM/4512016 dated 05-02.2018 stating that ltem Nos.1 to 3 are not accessible to the tools / 3 zo19 (1 ) ALD (crt. ) 34 8 software presenr: in TSFSL. Hence they could not be: analyzed, Lenovo mobite grhone ltem No.8 is password/pattern protected. Hence dat;a cou[,] not be retrieved from the phone m(:mory with the existinr3 toots /software's present in TSFSL. Therefo.e, there is no substanr[ial ev dence to prove the guitt of the petitioners. 11 Coming to :he attegation of cheating under Sectir''n 4ZO lPC, the atlegation was that the petitioners have inrluced the complainarrt to cetiver the distribution rights and having utitized the same, did not pay any amount to the comptainant. Cheating is d efined in Section 41 5 of the Code as, "Whor:ver,, by deceiving any pilrson, fraudulentty or dishonestty induces thr,r person so deceived to cietiver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shalI retain any property, or intentionatty indt,ces the person so decei',ed to do or omit to do anything which he woutd not do or onrit if h,: were not so deceived, and which act or )mission causes or is tikety to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputatior or property, is said to "cheat". Exptanation - A Cishonest conceatment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. The section iequires - (1 ) Deception of any person. (2) (a) Fr;ludutertty or dishonestly inducing that person (i) to detiver any property to any person; or (ii) to corrsent that any person shatl retain any property; or (b) intent-ionatty inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he woutd not do or omit if he were not so deceived. anrl which act or ornission r:auses or is likety to cause damage or harm to that person in body mind, reputation or property. 9 12 Cheating depends upon the intention of the accused at the time to inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sote test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hotd a person guitty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere faiture to keep up promise subsequently such a cutpabte intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise cannot be presumed. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no element of crimina[ breach of trust on the part of the petitioners. 13 As seen from the record, neither in the complaint nor in the charge sheet is there any attegation made against the petitioners that they have either knowingty or intentionatly conceated, destroyed or altered any computer source code. There is no evidence to show that the petitioners have knowingty infringed or abetted the infringement of the copyright in any work for being punished under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. 10 14 As s,=en from the record, the dispute arises out cif a contractual agreement. During the course of agreemerrt i.e. from

25.01 .2011 untit :he present complaint has been registered against the petitioners h:rein, the de facto comptainant has not initiated any action again;t the petitioners much less no notic,:] was sent and kept silent ;rt[ these years. So the remedv avaitable to the second respondent ls to approach a competent civil court and ctaim damages Ior the a[leged breach. lnstead of dr:ing so, it appears, the second respondent todged the complaint against the petitioners sotety with the intention to settte personal s;cores with them and attempled to convert a purety civiI dispute arising out of a contractual agr,:ement into a crimina[ case. ln G.Sagan Suri case (1 supra) the Hon bte Supreme Court held that

8. Jurisdi<tion under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with a great care. ln exercise of its jurisdiction High Court is not to ,lxamine the matter superficiatly. lt is to be se,en if a matter, which s essentialty of civil nature, has been given ,,r cloak of criminal off,:nce. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies availabte in [aw. Before issuing process a criminal court has to ex<rrcise a great deal of caution. For the accuse(: it is a serious rnatter. This Court has laid certain principles on the trasis of which High Cou-t is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, Juri:diction- under this Section has to be exerc sed to prevent abuse tf the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of j ust ice. 9. ln State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and Others, AIR (1977) SC 1489 = 11977) 3 SCR 113, this Court said that in the exercise of the whotesome power under Section 4g2 of thr: Code High Court is e ntitted to quash a proceeding if it comes r:o the conclusion that attowing the proceed-ing to continue would be an tP 11 abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require , that the proceedings are to be quashed. '15 For the aforesaid reasons and keeping in view the principte laid down by the Hon'bte Supreme Court in. State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lala wherein it was hetd that where the uncontroverted atlegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence coltected in support of the same do not disctose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused, the proceedings may be quashed. 16 Accordingly, this criminal petition is attowed, the proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.661 of 2OZ1 on the fite of the court of the lll Additionat Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, shatt hereby stand quashed. 17 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shatt stand closed. Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL R DEPUTY REGIST //TRUE CAPYfi SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The lll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad City. 2. The Station House Officer, P.S. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, State of Telangana, High Court Buildings, at Hyderabad (OUT)

4. One CC to Sri. S Nagesh Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies DL/PSL w HIGH COURT DATED:09/04/2025 ORDER g? TE( .$ k $* . .j, s ,L o 9 + o j,^L ,, A.- CRLP.No.8108 ot 2022 /itii + ALLOWING THE CRIIVIINAL PETITION \("