Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 913 (PNJ)

Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab

2003-07-09

K.C.GUPTA

body2003
JUDGMENT K.C. Gupta, J. - This is a petition on behalf of Surjit Singh, Proprietor M/s Expert Pictures 195, Railway Road, Jalandhar City for quashing FIR No. 283, dated 15.12.2000, under Sections 406/420/120-B Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Division No. 3, Jalandhar and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner is doing business of film distribution for the last about 20 years. He is running his business under the name and style of M/s Expert Pictures based at Jalandhar. On 4.3.1999, he purchased the distribution rights of a Punjabi film known as Sharika. The said agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 3-Kartar Singh Proprietor M/s Lubana Productions, Partap Road, Jalandhar City. A copy of the agreement is Annexure P-2. This distribution covered all the satellite channels throughout the World. 3. It is next stated that respondent No. 2-Amarjit Singh Proprietor M/s Golden Temple Films, Jalandhar had also entered into an agreement with Kartar Singh Lubana of M/s Lubana Productions, Amritsar to telecast Sharika film on Zee TV on Punjabi World Channel. An agreement to that effect was executed on 12.10.1999. It is further stated that as per the agreement entered into with the petitioner, the said film was to be telecast on Punjabi World Channel only but the petitioner telecast the same on Zee T.V. which caused a great loss to respondent No. 2. Consequently, respondent No. 2 got registered a case against the petitioner under Sections 406/420/120 Indian Penal Code. 4. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the aforesaid F.I.R. 5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the averments made in the petition as well as the replies. 6. The case of respondent No. 2 is that the petitioner was given rights to telecast Sharika film on Punjabi World Channel only but he was not given any right to telecast the same on Zee T.V. and the said right was given to respondent No. 2 to telecast the film on Zee T.V. and as such a great loss has been caused to respondent No. 2 (complainant). Certainly, the petitioner has not committed any offence under Section 406/420/120B Indian Penal Code. At the best he has violated the terms of agreement and against the terms of agreement, he had telecast the film Sharika on Zee T.V. instead of Punjabi World Channel only. Certainly, the petitioner has not committed any offence under Section 406/420/120B Indian Penal Code. At the best he has violated the terms of agreement and against the terms of agreement, he had telecast the film Sharika on Zee T.V. instead of Punjabi World Channel only. If the respondent No. 2 had suffered any loss then he could have filed a suit for damages against the petitioner. To my mind, no offence under Section 406/420/120B Indian Penal Code has been made out. 7. The counsel for the State submits that after investigation, the S.P. Kapurthala had sent a report dated 14.1.2003 to D.I.G. Jalandhar Range stating that no offence was made out against the petitioner. State counsel further submits that the documents had been got examined from the government handwriting expert and it was found that the agreement limiting his right did not contain the signatures of the petitioner. 8. In such circumstances, I hold that the continuation of the F.I.R. as well as subsequent proceedings thereto are abuse of the process of the Court. If the trial takes place, the same will ultimately result of futility. Consequently, FIR No. 283, dated 15.12.2000, under Section 406/420/120B Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Division No. 3, Jalandhar and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 9. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Petition allowed.