Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 281 (TS)

S. Srinivas Rao v. State of Telangana

2025-04-09

E.V.VENUGOPAL

body2025
ORDER : (E.V. VENUGOPAL, J.) 1 This criminal petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.661 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 65 of the Information Technology 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-19/ III, Road No. 92, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. The petitioners are running a firm under name and style as Nord Sinew Technologies India Private Limited having their office at No. 301, Port Stadium Area, Green Park Colony, Balayya Sastri Layout, Seethammadara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. The second respondent herein lodged a complaint with the Banjara Police, Hyderabad, stating that the first petitioner herein has illegally and unauthorisedly committed theft of the programmes that were telecast in their channels and was illegally up-linking the same content to their link channels in United States of America and other areas for the last four years. Based on the above, a case in Cr.No.1381 of 2015 was registered for the above stated offences and investigated into. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer apprehended the first petitioner, who voluntarily pleaded guilty of committing the offence along with the second petitioner herein. 3 During the course of investigation the first petitioner confessed that the second petitioner used to take agreement from the management of Telugu and other channels on contract basis and used to transmit them to America. The second petitioner entered into agreement with Rachana Television to transmit the TV Channels from India to America in the year 2011. This agreement was with a plan to take the signals from NTV in a clandestine way to transmit the material from Hyderabad to USA. The petitioners have worked a plan and did not pay a single penny to Rachana Television and transmitted the content of Rachana Television 1.e. NTV, Bhakti TV and Vanitha TV through internet and took this content into the hard disk. Through this hard disk they have sent the content to America under the name of Sneha Media through their own satellite towards America. Through this hard disk they have sent the content to America under the name of Sneha Media through their own satellite towards America. Though they have used this since last four years, he admitted that they have not paid any money towards Rachana Television, and they were using the premises to do this streaming and converting the streaming material into the hard disk. On being shown by the accused, the investigating officer seized the Hard disk namely 1) Hard Disc Seagate-3 Nos, 2) Sony DV Cam small cassettes, 3) Panasony mini DV-4 Nos, 4) CDs 4-Nos, and also phone cell 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/ 2016 dated 05.02.2018 in which he stated as follows: 1) Item Nos.1 to 3 are not accessible to the tools / software present in TSFSL. Hence they could not be analyzed. 2) Item Nos.4 to 7 are in working condition. 2.1) Item Nos. 4 to 7 contained several video files in ".rm" file format. I have viewed some of these video files and found "SNEHA TELEVISION" logo & "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-I COM/ 45/ 2016". 3) Lenovo mobile phone Item No.8 is password/ pattern protected. Hence data could not be retrieved from the phone memory with the existing tools / software's present in TSFSL. 3.1) Contents retrieved from two Airtel SIM Cards of item No.8 are furnished in Hard copy marked by me as "ANNEXURE-II COM/ 45/ 2016". 5 Basing on the above contentions / allegations, Sri S.Nagesh Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the second respondent herein lodged the complaint against the petitioners solely with the intention to settle personal scores with them and attempted to convert a purely civil dispute arising out of a contractual agreement into a criminal case. The confessional statement obtained by the police is inadmissible in law. He further submitted that since the offence allegedly took place at Visakhapatnam, the courts at Hyderabad have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. The confessional statement obtained by the police is inadmissible in law. He further submitted that since the offence allegedly took place at Visakhapatnam, the courts at Hyderabad have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. It is his further contention that the material seized by the investigating officer, on analysis by the FSL authorities, would go to show that the same were not accessible and hence their alleged contents could not be analyzed. Despite the said fact, the police filed the charge sheet by stating that the hard disks allegedly seized from the first petitioner were used to transmit the content of Rachana Television Pvt. Ltd, to USA, which allegation was not supported by any substantial evidence. 6 The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioners herein dishonestly induced the second respondent to deliver any property to them. Hence the offence under Section 420 IPC does not attract. 7 He further submitted that neither in the complaint nor in the charge sheet is there any allegation made against the petitioners that they have either knowingly or intentionally concealed, destroyed or altered any computer source code. He further submitted that there is no evidence to show that the petitioners have knowingly 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 allow the criminal petition and quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 8 In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 1) G.Sagar Suri vs. State of U.P , [ (2000) 2 SCC 636 ] and 2) Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar , [ (2000) 4 SCC 168 ] 9 On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the second petitioner takes agreement from the management of Telugu and other channels on contract basis depend upon the agreement. The petitioners hatched a plan and started downloading the signal without any permission from the proprietors of the channels. In the same way, they made agreement with Rachana Television, but the agreement was not fulfilled and the amount was also not paid to the complainant company. The petitioners hatched a plan and started downloading the signal without any permission from the proprietors of the channels. In the same way, they made agreement with Rachana Television, but the agreement was not fulfilled and the amount was also not paid to the complainant company. This agreement was made with an intention to cheat the complainant company and steal the contents of the broadcasting by infringing the copy right act and transmitted the contents of Rachana Television i.e. NTV, Bhakti TV and Vanitha TV contents to USA. The second petitioner is running Sneha Media in USA and used these contents of transmission in USA without any permission and used the content from 2011 to 2015. For this purpose, the second petitioner kept the first petitioner at Visakhapatnam office with required infrastructure and the contents of Rachana Television broadcast through internet and downloaded into the hard disks. Through this hard disk the contents were sent to USA through satellite of Sneha Media and getting huge profits. The petitioners have created this office with a view to cheat the television network i.e. Rachana Television and made breach of agreement. Hence it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners since truth or otherwise in the complaint would come to light only upon a thorough enquiry / trial. Hence he prayed to dismiss the petition. In support of his contentions, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor relied on the decision of this Court in Subhodaya Digital Entertainment (P) Ltd, Hyderabad vs. State of Telangana , [2019 (1) ALD (Crl.) 34] 10 It is the case of the prosecution that the first petitioner confessed that they committed the alleged offence. But the said confession is inadmissible in law as per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Moreover, the material seized by the investigating officer, on analysis by the FSL authorities, would go to show that the same were not accessible and hence their alleged contents could not be analyzed and the FSL authorities after analyzing the material have issued a report vide COM/ 45/ 2016 dated 05.02.2018 stating that Item Nos.1 to 3 are not accessible to the tools / software present in TSFSL. Hence they could not be analyzed, Lenovo mobile phone Item No.8 is password/ pattern protected. Hence data could not be retrieved from the phone memory with the existing tools / software's present in TSFSL. Hence they could not be analyzed, Lenovo mobile phone Item No.8 is password/ pattern protected. Hence data could not be retrieved from the phone memory with the existing tools / software's present in TSFSL. Therefore, there is no substantial evidence to prove the guilt of the petitioners. 11 Coming to the allegation of cheating under Section 420 IPC, the allegation was that the petitioners have induced the complainant to deliver the distribution rights and having utilized the same, did not pay any amount to the complainant. Cheating is defined in Section 415 of the Code as, "Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". Explanation - A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. The section requires - (1) Deception of any person. (2) (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person (i) to deliver any property to any person; or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body mind, reputation or property. 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 sole 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 hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. Therefore it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable 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 criminal 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 allegation made against the petitioners that they have either knowingly or intentionally concealed, destroyed or altered any computer source code. There is no evidence to show that the petitioners have knowingly infringed or abetted the infringement of the copyright in any work for being punished under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. 14 As seen from the record, the dispute arises out of a contractual agreement. During the course of agreement i.e. from 25.01.2011 until the present complaint has been registered against the petitioners herein, the de facto complainant has not initiated any action against the petitioners much less no notice was sent and kept silent all these years. So the remedy available to the second respondent is to approach a competent civil court and claim damages for the alleged breach. Instead of doing so, it appears, the second respondent lodged the complaint against the petitioners solely with the intention to settle personal scores with them and attempted to convert a purely civil dispute arising out of a contractual agreement into a criminal case. In G.Sagar Suri case (1 supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that 8. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with a great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, Jurisdiction- under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 9. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and Others, AIR (1977) SC 1489 = [1977] 3 SCR 113, this Court said that in the exercise of the wholesome power under Section 482 of the Code High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceed-ing to continue would be an 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 principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 wherein it was held that where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused, the proceedings may be quashed. 16 Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed, the proceedings pending against the petitioners in C.C.No.661 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, shall hereby stand quashed. 17 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.