HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.7873 of 2014 Date: 01-8-2014 Between Fox Star Studios India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Mukesh Jain … Petitioner/ Accused No.7 and S.Rajasekhar Reddy … Respondent/
De facto Complainant
The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad … Respondent HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.7873 of 2014 Order:
The petitioner is accused No.7 in Crime No.61 of 2014 on the file of Central Crime Station, Central Zone, Hyderabad. The petitioner is Fox Star Studios India Private Limited, a subsidiary of 20th Century Fox Limited.
The complaint lodged by the 1st respondent was registered as First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No.61 of 2014 arraying the petitioner also as one of the accused. The petitioner seeks for the quashment of the FIR so far as the petitioner is concerned.
2. A Tamil film by name Vatti Kuchhi was dubbed into Telugu as Pranam Kosam by M/s. Sri Jagannatha Swamy Productions. The 1st respondent contended that the petitioner/accused No.7 and others treated him and otherwise misconducted themselves for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 and 506 IPC and lodged the complaint. The petitioner contended that it has nothing to do with the dispute, if any, between the 1st respondent and the 1st accused and that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for any misdeeds and criminal activity on the part of accused No.1.
3. The petitioner produced the Tamil version Vatti Kuchhi. Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Telugu dubbing rights were purchased by accused No.1. He further contended that the assignor transferred the rights of the Telugu version in favour of accused No.1 at a cost of Rs.10 lakhs.
4. Sri Ch.Mastan Naidu, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/de facto complainant, however, contended that the 1st respondent deposited Rs.4 Crores in the account of accused No.7 and submitted that the petitioner is evading to return the same on one pretext or the other. Inter alia, it is his contention that the 1st respondent is not concerned with the assignee – assignor relationship between accused No.1 and the petitioner and that as the money was received by the petitioner from the 1st respondent in respect of the film Pranam Kosam, the petitioner is guilty of criminal misconduct.
is:
5. The case of the 1st respondent from the complaint
(a) The 1st respondent is the Proprietor of Sri Jagannatha Swamy Productions (SJSP, for short). SJSP was registered with the Andhra Pradesh Film Chamber of Commerce (APFCC). The 1st respondent is new to film business. As such, the 1st respondent and his father took the support of accused No.1 and accused No.4, wife of accused No.1. Accused 1 and 4 are the Proprietors of J.V. Productions and Sreeja Films.
The petitioner/ accused No.7 is a joint venture between Star T.V. (India) and 21st Century Fox of Los Angeles and is based at Mumbai. The petitioner is also in the business of production and distribution of films in India.
(b) The 1st respondent paid Rs.68 lakhs to the petitioner through RTGS to purchase the Telugu dubbing rights for the film Vatti Kuchhi. The movie was released in Telugu as Pranam Kosam in February, 2014.
The 1st respondent later came to know that the Telugu dubbing rights of Vatti Kuchhi were given to M/s. J.V. Productions, represented by accused No.1 and not to M/s. SJSP. The accused 1 and 4 received nearly Rs.1.35 Crores from the 1st respondent initially and collected a further amount of Rs.1.70 Crores for dubbing rights of various films. When the 1st respondent demanded accused 1 and 4 for the return of the same, they threatened to kill him.
6. On the basis of such a complaint, investigation had been taken up. Be it noted that primarily, there is no allegation against the petitioner except that the petitioner misrepresented and received Rs.68 lakhs for the dubbing rights.
7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that it was advertised that accused No.1 and the 1st respondent were releasing the film as co-producers under the banner of SJSP and A.Muruga Das Productions. The Tamil version was released by Muruga Das on 15-3-2013. The audio of the Telugu version was launched on 23-12-2013, whereas the 1st respondent and the 1st accused figured as the producers. The name of the petitioner is conspicuous by its absence in the advertisement. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no complicity on the part of the petitioner in the transaction between the 1st respondent and the 1st accused and that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for any of the offences levelled against it.
8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that initially in the FIR, the CEO and CFO of the petitioner were described as representing the petitioner as shown as entry 1 in column No.7 of the FIR. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the CEO as well as the CFO of the petitioner obtained transit bail for two weeks from 02-7-2014 till 14-7-2014 from the Bombay High Court. He pointed out that in the remand report of accused 1 and 4, accused No.7 was described to be the Company and not the CEO and the CFO. He also submitted that the investigation did not disclose the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the offence as can be seen in the remand report.
9. The remand report does not state anything about the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the offences. Added to it, the petitioner never entered into any agreement with the 1st respondent. The assignment agreement was between the 1st respondent and the 1st accused. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint was lodged arraying the petitioner as an accused by the 1st respondent to settle his financial score with accused No.1. He contended that the dispute is not only a civil dispute but is a dispute between the 1st accused and the 1st respondent and that the petitioner is unconcerned of the dispute. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution of the petitioner and the maintenance of the FIR against the petitioner are unjustified.
10. In UMA SHANKAR GOPALIKA v. STATE OF
[1]
BIHAR , it was observed that breach of contract would amount to cheating only if intention to cheat was existing at the time of the very inception. In SARABJIT SINGH v.
[2]
STATE OF PUNJAB , lodging an FIR to pressurize the accused without any material to support the allegations were held to be sufficient to warrant the quashment of the FIR. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that there is no material to link the petitioner to the commission of the offences by accused 1 to 4 and that there is no complicity on the part of the petitioner in the commission of the offences; so much so, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the claim is liable to be rejected so far as the petitioner is concerned.
11. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent, however, submitted that the copy of the account extract of the 1st respondent would show deposit of about Rs.4 Crores by the 1st respondent with the petitioner. The petitioner pleads ignorance of the same. At any rate, it is not shown by the 1st respondent that the alleged deposit by the 1st respondent is in connection with the present transaction. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the 1st respondent and later cheated him. The record does not show that the petitioner entered into any sort of contract with the 1st respondent, barring for the bank account relied upon by the 1st respondent. In this background, I consider that no case is made out against the petitioner in respect of the offences alleged through FIR in Crime No.61 of 2014. Where absolutely no case is made out, the complaint is liable to be quashed.
12. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.61 of 2014 on the file of Central Crime Station, Central Zone, Hyderabad is quashed so far as the petitioner/accused No.7 is concerned.
The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.
Dr. K.G.SHANKAR, J.
01st August, 2014. Ak HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.7873 of 2014 01st August, 2014. (Ak)
[1] (2005) 10 SCC 336
[2] (2013) 6 SCC 800