✦ High Court of India · 04 Sep 2024

High Court · 2024

Case Details High Court of India · 04 Sep 2024

Court

High Court of India

Decided

04 Sep 2024

Bench

Not available

Length

1,133 words

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure §156(3)Code of Criminal Procedure §397 Indian Penal Code §25 Indian Penal Code §379

Crl.R.C. No. 1318 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 04.09.2024CORAMTHE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMALKUMARCRL.R.C. No. 1318 of 2024GTL Infrastructure Limited,Rep. by its Authorised SignatoryMr. Justin Chelliah,Office at New No.232/Old No. 186,City Centre, 3rd Floor,Purasawalkam High Road,Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010...PetitionerVs.Inspector of Police,Cheyur Police Station,Near Weekly Market,Salem to Gopi Main Road,Cheyur, Tiruppur 641 655...RespondentPrayer:Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 29.01.2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 2420 of 2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi and pass a direction to register FIR towards complaint dated 09.03.2023 under Sections 379, 1\9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C. No. 1318 of 2024447, 424, and 426 IPC read with Section 25 of Telegraph Act.For Petitioner::Ms. Sneha Parthasarathy for Mr. Abhishek JenasenanO R D E RThe present criminal revision is filed to set aside the order dated 29.01.2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 2420 of 2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi and pass a direction to register FIR towards complaint dated 09.03.2023 under Sections 379, 447, 424, and 426 IPC read with Section 25 of Telegraph Act.2.The facts of the case are:(i)The petitioner is an Infrastructure Provider Category I (IP-1) registered with the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, New Delhi and is engaged in the business of installation and maintenance of passive infrastructures/Telecom Towers for the licensed Telecom Operators across India including the Circle of Rest of Tamil Nadu. The towers business of Aircel Private Limited was purchased by a special purpose vehicle that was set up for the same. The rights and liabilities of Aricel Private Limited were vested with the special 2\9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C. No. 1318 of 2024purpose vehicle set up by the petitioner by order in a Scheme of Arrangement approved by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CP Nos. 103, 110 to 112 of 2010. Thereafter, the Special Purpose Vehicle and the petitioner merged vide order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Single Bench, Chennai dated 13.12.2017. Therefore, the rights and liabilities of Aircel now vests with the petitioner. (ii)In the year 2009, a leave and licence/lease agreement dated 23.06.2009 was executed between the petitioner or its predecessor-in-business and Mr.K. Ramasamy (“Landlord”) for installation of Mobile Tower situated at land measuring an extent of 2400 sq.ft comprised in Survey No. 451/2B, Kasilingampalayam Village, Avinashi Taluk, Thirupur (hereinafter referred to as ‘ site’). The petitioner or its predecessor-in-business had erected Mobile Tower upon the said site for better telecom services. As such, the said site is presently in possession of the petitioner and the tower erected thereupon is owned and possessed by the petitioner. (iii)While this was so, Aircel Limited, Aircel Cellular Limited and Dishnet Wireless Limited amalgamated with one Chennai Network 3\9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C. No. 1318 of 2024India Limited (“CNIL”) vide a Scheme of Arrangement approved by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in C.P. Nos. 103, 110 to 112 of 2010. A diligence of the towers was done at this point. The consideration was paid and the merger was ordered only after being convinced that the towers were available in the location. Thereafter, CNIL merged with the petitioner vide an order dated 13.12.2017 passed by Hon’ble NCLT Chennai in Company Application No. CA/152/CAA/2017. Before the sanction of this Merger with CNIL, the petitioner conducted a detailed diligence on the location and contents of the towers of CNIL, only on being satisfied that all the towers were intact and available in the leased premises, the merger was sanctioned. (iv)It is the petitioner’s further case that it conducts continuous audit on the towers (especially Non-Radiating ones) throughout the year, based on the random sampling from all the Roof Top Towers (RTT) and Ground Base Towers (GBT) spread across India and this is called Tower on Ground Survey (ToG). Pursuant to one such ToG survey of the petitioner company, it was found that a Mobile Tower/equipment was 4\9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C. No. 1318 of 2024unavailable at the site and upon enquiry, it was understood that the said act of theft was committed by miscreants/unknown persons/landlords, which had resulted in huge loss to the petitioner company. Though the petitioner through its representative tried to lodge a complaint before the respondent Police, there was no proper response, which forced the petitioner to issue a postal complaint to the Inspector of Police, Cheyur Police Station, Tiruppur District on 09.03.2023 and the same was received on 11.03.2023. During enquiry, it was found by the Inspector of Police that there was some dispute with regard to payment of lease/licence amount and hence, it was said that the petitioner’s complaint cannot be looked into. Thereafter, a postal complaint was sent to Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur on 03.06.2023. The said complaint also did not evoke any response. Hence, the petitioner was forced to file a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P. No. 2420 of 2023 before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Avinashi to register an FIR based on the complaint dated 09.03.2023. In support of its case, the petitioner had produced all the documents including lease/licence agreement, handing over of business, order of High Court and other relevant documents. 5\9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C. No. 1318 of 2024However, by the order under challenge, the said petition came to be dismissed. Hence, the present revision.3.Counter has been filed by the respondent stating that the complaint lodged by the petitioner does not disclose the particulars as to when the towers were installed, when the inspection was conducted and the date on which the towers were found to be missing. In short, according to the respondent, the complaint of the petitioner is bereft of material particulars. Moreover, the counter states that the Trial Court had rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner holding that no cognizable offence has been made out.4.Heard the submissions of both sides and perused the materials on record.5.This Court finds that there has been some dispute with regard to payment of licence/lease amount to the landowner. But, that does not automatically lead to the inference that the towers have been removed by the landowner. There also appears to be some dispute 6\9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C. No. 1318 of 2024between the petitioner and erstwhile owner of the towers namely, AIRCEL and the litigation has been going on for quite some time. The Trial Court, after considering all these aspects, had dismissed the petition and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the Trial Court. If the petitioner is not left with any remedy, the petitioner can file a private complaint, if so advised and if so desired. 6.The criminal revision stands dismissed with the above observation. 04.09.2024nv4/5To1.The Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi.2.Inspector of Police,Cheyur Police Station,Near Weekly Market,Salem to Gopi Main Road,Cheyur, Tiruppur 641 655.7\9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C. No. 1318 of 20248\9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C. No. 1318 of 2024M. NIRMALKUMAR,J.nvCrl.R.C. No. 1318 of 202404.09.20249\9

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Code of Criminal Procedure