Calcutta High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Sunil Mittal In Airtel User's Complaint Over Denial Of Discount, Alleged Forgery

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday quashed criminal proceedings in a private complaint alleging offences under Sections 465 and 468 of IPC against Bharti Enterprises Chairman Sunil Bharti Mittal and another senior company official on the ground that allegations made in the complaint do not disclose any prosecutable case against them.

Justice Rai Chattopadhyay said the complainant has not been able to project in his written complaint any prima facie material against the petitioners.

"At the cost of reiteration it can be stated that the complaint is vague and silent about any specific role of any of the petitioners in commission of the alleged acts," said the court.

The complainant in 2014 had applied for two connections of Airtel Broadband through the two agents, who are also accused in the complaint. It was alleged by the complainant that the agents assured him that a ‘customer relationship form’, required to be filled in for the purpose of obtaining the connections, will be sent to him.

He further alleged that at the time of obtaining the connection, he was promised to be given a rental discount of Rs. 300/- per month for each connection but the same was never provided to him

It was also alleged by the complainant that ‘customer relationship form’ did not contain his signature or photograph and any form if submitted by the other two accused persons would contain his forged signature as well as forged electricity bill.

Thus, the complainant in his complaint dated January 17, 2015 alleged offences of cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy to have been committed against him by all the four accused persons including Mittal. The Magistrate vide order dated January 17, 2015 took cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant.

Upon examination of the complainant and another witness under section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate vide order dated September 8, 2015, observed that a prima facie case under sections 465 and 468 of the IPC was made out against all the four accused persons named in the complaint including the petitioners and directed issuance of process against all of them under section 204 CrPC.

Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners approached the High Court.

The counsel appearing for petitioners contended that no specific allegation has been made against any of the petitioners and that the accusation against them for their being vicariously liable, for the alleged offence committed by the company, cannot be sustained with regard to the offence under IPC.

The court in the judgment said the petitioners have been entangled vicariously for the offences alleged to have been committed by the other two accused persons and may be, also the company.

"However it is the settled law that the code does not contemplate any vicarious liability on part of any party who is not charged directly for commission of an offence, save and except some provisions specifically provided therefor," said the court.

The Court relied upon the judgements of the Supreme Court in Asoke Basak v. State of Maharashtra & Others (2010) 10 SCC 660 and Thermax Limited & Ors. v. K. M. Johny & Others (2011) 13 SCC 412 in which it was held that the complainant must disclose essential ingredients of offences as alleged.

It was observed by the court that in the instant case neither cognizable offences had been disclosed in the complaint against the present petitioners nor the allegations against them as made in the complaint when taken even on their face value have made out any prosecutable case.

The court further held that cognizance of offence taken against the petitioners and issuance of process against them by the trial court suffered from gross illegality.

It put emphasis upon the judgement of Supreme Court in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI (2015) 4 SCC 609 and noted:

“In the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal (supra), the Supreme Court has categorically held that a wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process upon the Magistrate and it must be judiciously exercised. The Court opined that a person ought not to be dragged into court merely because the complaint has been filed. That the words “sufficient ground for proceeding” appearing in section 204 Cr.P.C are of immense importance. That, the said words amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself.”

Quashing the proceedings against the petitioners, the court said:

"On the entire discussion as above, this Court comes to the conclusion that, in this case to proceed against the present petitioners would only amount to gross abuse of the process of Court as well as that of law which is however, to be prevented, pursuant to the laws settled in this regard."

Case Title: Sunil Bharti Mittal & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 95 

Coram: Justice Rai Chattopadhyay

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment