Telangana High Court
S. Srinivas Rao vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 9 April, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8108 OF 2022
ORDER:
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
2
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. Though they
3
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”.
4
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. 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
5
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
6
Apex Court in 1) G.Sagar Suri vs. State of U.P 1 and 2) Hridaya
Ranjan Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar 2.
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. 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.
1
(2000) 2 SCC 636
2
(2000) 4 SCC 168
7
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 3.
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 /
3
2019 (1) ALD (Crl.) 34
8
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. 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.
9
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. 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.
10
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. 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
11
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 Lal4 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.
_______________________
JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
Date: 09.04.2025
Kvsn
4
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426