The Calcutta High Court quashed the investigation proceedings under section 385 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 on the ground of no dishonest intention for collecting the subscription fee from the Distribution Platform Owners (DPO).
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd, the petitioner filed a revision petition for quashing the investigation/proceeding in the Bhawanipore Police Station case under Sections 385/120B of the Indian Penal Code and also corresponding proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Sandipan Ganguly and L. Vishal Kumar, the counsels for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was a Broadcaster for distributing its channels entered into a contractual arrangement by way of an interconnect Agreement with various Multi-System Operators (MSOs)/Distribution Platform Owners (DPOs) for distributing the channels to end subscribers.
Further submitted that the DPOs are liable to pay to the Broadcaster the subscription charges collected from its end subscribers by way of a true ad correct declaration of the actual number of subscribers and from a perusal of the First Information Report of the proceeding impugned and the contents thereof, it was apparent that no offense whatsoever can be said to have been committed by the petitioner much less any offenses under Sections 385/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
Also stated that the DPOs not declaring the true and correct subscriber base had not only caused loss to the Broadcaster but also to the state exchequer by not paying tax to the government on the actual number of subscribers catered by the DPO.
Ranabir Roychowdhury and Mainak Gupta, the counsels for the respondent contended that the petitioner demanded the subscription fee to the DPOs which amount to extortion and the petitioner puts the opposite party under fear or attempts to put under fear and the said fear was that some injury was going to be caused to the opposite party.
The Bench observed that there had to be prima facie material to show that the petitioners had put the opposite party in fear of injury to that person or any other person and there was no material on record to prove that the petitioners had intention to put the complainant in fear or any other person.
A single-member bench comprising Shampa Dutt held that petitioners acted as per the agreement between the parties to demand their legitimate dues and there was also no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner and quashed the investigation proceedings filed under section 385 of the Indian Penal Code.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
