Gujarat High CourtDipankar Vijay Bahadur vs State Of Gujarat & on 29 January, 2013Author:K.M.ThakerBench:K.M.ThakerDIPANKAR VIJAY BAHADUR YADAVV/SSTATE OF GUJARAT
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	

 
 


	 


	R/SCR.A/3590/2012
	                                                                    
	                           ORDER

 

 


 
	  
	  
		 
			 

IN
			THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
		
	

 


 


 


SPECIAL CRIMINAL
APPLICATION  NO. 3590 of 2012
 


 


 

================================================================
 


DIPANKAR VIJAY BAHADUR
YADAV  &  1....Applicant(s)
 


Versus
 


STATE OF GUJARAT  & 
12....Respondent(s)
 

================================================================
 

Appearance:
 

MR.DIPAK
B PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 2
 

MS
JANI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
 

================================================================
 

 


 


	 
		  
		 
		  
			 
				 

CORAM:
				
				
			
			 
				 

HONOURABLE
				MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
			
		
	

 


 

 


Date : 29/01/2013
 


 

 


ORAL ORDER1.
Heard Mr. K.R. Tiwari, learned advocate with Mr. Dipak. B. Patel,
learned advocate for the petitioners and Ms. Raval, learned APP for
the respondent State.2.
In present petition, the petitioners have prayed that:-(A)
	This Hon'ble court may be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR
	being CR. NO.283 of 2012 registered with Mahidharpura Police
	station, Surat undersec. 420,465467,468,471and120(B)of IPC
	andu/s. 66of IT Act;(B)
	This Hon'ble  court may be pleased to call for the records, papers
	and proceedings of FIR being CR. NO. 283 of 2012 registered with
	Mahidharpura Police station, Surat undersec. 420,465,467,468,471and120 (B)of IPC andu/s. 66of IT Act at the behest of
	respondent no.6, against the petitioners and others from the
	Mahidharpura police station, Surat and after going through the
	legality, validity and proprietary of the same, be pleased to pass
	an appropriate order and directions as this Hon'ble court may deem
	fit and proper;(C)
	That this Hon'ble court be pleased to issue writ of prohibition or a
	writ in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ,
	order or direction to the respondent no. 2 and 3, their agents,
	servants from taking any further steps in furtherance of FIR being
	C.R. NO. 283 of 2012 registered with Mahidharpura Police station,
	Surat undersec.  420,465,467,468,471and120 (B)of IPC and
	u/s. 66 ofIT Actagainst the petitioners and others from the
	Mahidharpura police station, Surat, Gujarat;(D)
	Pending the hearing and final disposal of writ petition, this
	Hon'ble court be pleased to issue writ of prohibition or a writ in
	the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order and
	directions to the respondent no. 2, there agents, servants from
	taking any other steps in furtherance of FIR being C.R. NO. 283 of
	2012 registered with Mahidharpura Police station, Surat undersec. 
	420,465,467,468,471and120 (B)of IPC andu/s. 66of IT Act;
	against the petitioners and others from the Mahidharpura police
	station, Surat, Gujarat;(E)...............A
	complaint / FIR appears to have been lodged by officer   employee
	of respondent No.3, which is electricity company and is granted
	licence to supply electricity in the area of licence i.e. Surat.3.1	The
	complainant officer has alleged that the accused persons i.e.
	petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are unauthorizedly receiving amounts from
	consumers of the electricity company and they are even issuing,
	unauthorizedly, receipts using name and logo of respondent No.3
	company and they claim that on their (i.e. the consumers) behalf
	they will make payment of bill amounts to the respondent No.3
	company and thereby supply service to the persons belonging members
	of public and that they are even authorized to issue receipts in
	name of electricity company acknowledging payments on behalf of
	electricity company whereas actually the petitioners do not have any
	permission, authority or right either to receive payment in name of
	and on behalf of the company and / or issue receipts on behalf of
	and in name of the company and / or by using logo and name of
	company.3.2	It
	is also  alleged in the complaint that it is noticed that after
	receiving amount from certain persons, the petitioners had not
	deposited the amount with respondent No.3- Company and thereby the
	petitioners committed fraud and other offence alleged in the
	complaint / FIR.3.3
	Accordingly, the complaint / FIR alleging offence underSections
	420,465,467,468,471,120-Bof Indian Penal Code and underSection 66(C)of Information Technology Act came to be filed.Learned
	advocate for the petitioners has referred to the details mentioned
	in paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of petition which read thus:-3.That petitioners state that the facts will remain that the petitioner
No.1's company Viprem Global India is established in Surat on 10th
July 2011 with aims and mottos to provide service to common people
and with good intention to making the life of common people easy and
honourable and also creating awareness among common men to use
information technology of their betterment. The petitioner No.1 is
running the present company named  Viprem Infotech (P) Ltd  which
is registered under Company Act 1956, with registration No:U72900UP2007PTC034108 and providing the same service since 2007 to
common people with own agent network and never have false record in
providing good service to the customers and have diligently and
honestly kept the consumer interest before them. To expand his
business, the petitioner No.1, shifted to Surat. The petitioner No.1
is member of respondent No.6 since 2008, as stockiest and north India
Channel Partner. The Viprem Global India company is authorized
channel agent of  Suvidha  with ID number 57189 to provide the
various utility service. The petitioner company is authorized channel
of Hermes i-ticket Pvt Ltd to provide the various travel and utility
service including bill payment of torrent power. The above said
company is authorized API partner of my mobile payment and Icash card
to dispense the mobile recharge, bill payment service and utility
service and acts as a payment gateway on various website. The above
said company is also having large agent network across India to
provide online and offline services like mobile recharge. D.T.H.
recharge, mobile bill payments, utility services.The
	petitioners state that the working model of Viprem Global India for
	bill payment is semi-online method and the working pattern is B2B.
	It displays the logos of valid services, which are dispense by it
	and the utility bills collected by company through its website
	processed in backend through available service providers.5.Learned advocate for the petitioner further asserted that the
	respondent No.3   Company has authorized respondent No.5 company
	to collect its payment from their customers online and the said
	respondent No.5 company has allegedly, authorized respondent No.6 to
	do the same work through its software  Smart Shop . He also
	claimed that the said respondent No.6 has authorized establishment
	named  Viprem Global India  i.e. company of petitioner No.2 to
	make payment of bills of respondent No.3 company using the software.It
		is pertinent that any cogent and satisfactory material to support
		such claims and assertions is not placed on record.5.1
	Learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the petitioners
	are not doing any illegal activity and they have not committed any
	fraud. Learned advocate for the petitioners relied on the document
	at page 39 of present petition which, according to learned advocate
	for the petitioners, is the reply given by the company of petitioner
	No.1 to the complainant.On
	perusal of the said letter, it emerges that the petitioners have
	disputed the allegations made in the FIR / complaint. It also
	appears that the petitioners have contended that the amounts in
	question were not deposited with the respondent company because of
	certain technical fault however, it cannot be termed as fraud or any
	illegality by petitioners. Learned advocate for the petitioners
	submitted that either on account of misconceived facts or
	misunderstanding, impugned allegations have been made in the FIR /
	complaint and the petitioners are being prosecuted without any
	fault. It is claimed that the petitioners have not committed any
	offence as alleged in the FIR.Mr.Jani,
	learned APP has appeared and submitted that the complaint / FIR is
	under investigation and unless complete details are not gathered by
	the investigating officer, any final opinion or decision as to
	whether summary should be filed or report should be filed, cannot be
	taken.7.1	Learned
	APP submitted that on investigation if sufficient material to
	prosecute the petitioners is found then appropriate report will be
	filed.On
	perusal of the FIR / complaint it does not appear to have been filed
	maliciously or by way of abuse of process of law.8.1	It
	prima facie appears that the allegation that the name and logo of
	respondent No.3 company is being unauthorizedly used by the
	petitioners while issuing so-called receipts which represent and
	give impression that the receipts are issued by the company,
	deserves and requires proper and detailed investigation, more so
	when the allegation that monies were collected and receipts were
	used are not denied.Having
		regard to the nature and extent of allegations and considering the
		fact that consumers i.e. members of public might have been made
		victim of the scheme and that therefore without investigation, FIR
		/ complaint ought not be quashed.9.	On
	overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and
	the allegations made in the FIR, it appears that the nature and
	extent of allegations are such which call for proper investigation
	and this Court will not be justified in terminating the
	investigation at its threshold.9.1	Having
	regard to the observations by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision
	in case of Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri vs. State of Andra
	Pradesh (AIR 2008 SC 787) wherein the Apex Court in paragraph No. 30
	held that:-30............In
dealing with such cases, the High Court has to bear in mind that
judicial intervention at the threshold of the legal process initiated
against a person accused of committing offence is highly detrimental
to the larger public and societal interest. The people and the
society have a legitimate expectation that those committing offences
either against an individual or the society are expeditiously brought
to trial and, if found guilty, adequately punished. Therefore, while
deciding a petition filed for quashing the FIR or complaint or
restraining the competent authority from investigating the
allegations contained in the FIR or complaint or for stalling the
trial of the case, the High Court should be extremely careful and
circumspect. If the allegations contained in the FIR or complaint
discloses commission of some crime, then the High Court must keep its
hands off and allow the investigating agency to complete the
investigation without any fetter and also refrain from passing order
which may impede the trial. The High Court should not go into the
merits and demerits of the allegations simply because the petitioner
alleges malus animus against the author of the FIR or the
complainant. The High Court must also refrain from making imaginary
journey in the realm of possible harassment which may be caused to
the petitioner on account of investigation of the FIR or complaint.Such a course will result in miscarriage of justice and would
encourage those accused of committing crimes to repeat the same.
However, if the High Court is satisfied that the complaint does not
disclose commission of any offence or prosecution is barred by
limitation or that the proceedings of criminal case would result in
failure of justice, then it may exercise inherent power under Section
482, Cr.P.C.In
view of the above observations and in light of the decision by the
Hon'ble Apex court, the Court is not inclined to entertain the
petition.Any
cause for interference with the process of investigation and to
terminate the investigation at its threshold is not made out.
Therefore, petition does not deserved to be entertained and the same
is accordingly rejected.The
petition stands disposed of.(K.M.THAKER, J.) 

 

suresh8