MOON NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED Vs SET DISCOVERY PVT. LTD.

Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal9 January 2006HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. SANTOSH HEGDE, CHAIRPERSON, MR. VINOD VAISH, MEMBER, LT. GENERAL D.P. SEHGAL (RETD.), MEMBER

Case No.BROADCASTING PETITION/10/2005 (MOON NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED Vs SET)

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal may decline to make a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. where, on the facts, it is not expedient to do so. Expediency is assessed on the circumstances of the particular case, and the court need not decide the governing legal principles laid down in the authorities cited if the application can be disposed of on that basis. Where the main proceedings were disposed of by compromise without the Tribunal's adjudication and were not founded on the allegedly forged document, it is not expedient to invoke Section 340 in respect of that document. Refusing to make a complaint under Section 340 does not bar the applicant from pursuing such other remedies as are permissible in law, and such a refusal decides nothing on the merits of the allegations of forgery or fabrication.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

6/7/2018 TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNALTELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT & APPELLATE TRIBUNALNEW DELHIDATED 9th JANUARY, 2006M.A. No.201 of 2005INPETITION NO.10(C) OF 2005Moon Network Pvt. Ltd.1/47, Hotel East LiteDelhi Gate, Agra….PetitionerVersusSet Discovery160 AS-2, Sehior Plaza,2nd Floor, Gautam Nagar,New Delhi – 110 049….RespondentBEFORE:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. SANTOSH HEGDE,CHAIRPERSONMR. VINOD VAISH, MEMBERLT. GENERAL D.P. SEHGAL (RETD.), MEMBERFor Petitioner in M.A. 201/05 : Ms. Vaishalee Mehra, AdvocateFor Respondent in M.A. 201/05 : Mr. Arun Kathpalia with(Petitioner in main Petition) Mr. Susmit Pushkar, Advocates forBajpai & Co.For Set Discovery : Mr. Aditya Narain, Avocate(Respondent in main petition)ORDER

This is an application filed under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Sections 192, 193, 196 and 463-465 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 16 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 for the prosecution of the Respondents named in Petition No.10(C) of 2005, namely Shri Surjit Singh and Shri Rahul Paliwal. The basis of the complaint is that the said persons fabricated a letter dated 12th February, 2005 by forging the signature of the applicant herein. It is also alleged that the said fabricated and forged letter was presented to this Tribunal as a piece of evidence to show that there was a declaration by the applicant in regard to certain factual aspects which were in fact not true. On the basis of the above factual averment, it is pleaded that the Respondents named above have committed an offence under Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code, Hence, this application under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code is moved by the Petitioner herein, who is not a party to the main proceedings, to take appropriate steps. In this Petition notices have been issued and persons named in the Petition have responded by filing their reply and have denied the allegation of fabrication and forgery levelled against them. They have asserted that the alleged fabricated letter dated 12th February, 2005 was in fact faxed to them by the Petitioner herein. Hence, they prayed that this Petition be dismissed.

The learned counsel appearing for the parties to this Petition have relied upon some Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, like in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and Another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Another [(2005) 4 SCC 370] and Surjit Singh and Others Vs. Balbir Singh [(1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases 533] etc. But we do not think that it is necessary for us to go into the law laid down by the apex court in those cases for the purpose of the disposal of this Petition. Having perused the pleadings in this Petition and having heard the arguments addressed on behalf of the learned counsel, we are of the considered opinion that it is not necessary for this Tribunal to invoke the provisions of Section 340 of Cr.PC in this case. While doing so, we notice the fact that the original petition to which the present complainant/Petitioner is not a party was disposed of by compromise without the intervention of this Tribunal and not based on the disputed document. Our decision not to take any action under Section 340 of Cr.PC is based solely on the facts and circumstances of this case on the ground that it is not expedient for this Tribunal to invoke Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and if the Petitioner is still aggrieved, he can take such steps as is permissible in law without in any manner being inhibited by the dismissal of this Petition. As a measure of abundant caution, we also record the fact that we have not expressed any views on the merits and demerits of the allegations in this Petition.

With the above observation, this Application stands dismissed.

…………………….J (N. Santosh Hegde) Chairperson

………………. (Vinod Vaish) Member

……………… (D.P. Sehgal) Member

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free