The Allahabad High Court has stayed the arrest of Harjinder Singh, distributor of Broadband Internet service provider company DEN, and his son on charges of conspiracy and cheating and has sought reply from the state government within six weeks.
The Division Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prakash Padia passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Harjinder Singh and Another.
The petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the First Information Report 24.5.2023 registered as Case under sections 420, 409, 403, 441, 379, 427, 504, 506, 120B Indian Penal Code and Section 65 & 72 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 and Section 25 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 at Police Station Izzatnagar, District Bareilly.
Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned FIR has been lodged alleging therein that the informant’s company is in the business of fixed line broadband internet services in the name and style of DEN. The first petitioner is the distributor of said company and the second petitioner is son of the first petitioner. A distributorship agreement has been executed between the informant’s company and the first petitioner, who is running a proprietorship firm in the name and style of Simran Agencies on 9.5.2022.
He further submitted the informant’s company has sold 67% shares to JIO company in a clandestine manner and for completing the transfer of shares, it requires NOC from the distributors.
In this regard, the informant’s company has asked the first petitioner to provide NOC but the first petitioner refused to provide the same on account of outstanding dues upon the said company to the tune of Rs 10 crores.
Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in order to create pressure and obtain NOC from the proprietorship firm of the first petitioner i.e Simran Agency, the impugned FIR has been lodged against the first petitioner and his son on the basis of false and concocted story.
He also submitted that the impugned FIR is also liable to be quashed on the ground that in clause 10(i) of distributorship agreement, there is a provision of arbitration, if any dispute arises between the parties but instead of referring the matter to arbitration, the impugned FIR has been lodged, which is wholly illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed by this Court on this ground alone.
He said that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil in nature and just to give colour to the civil dispute, the First Information Report has been lodged.
In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgement of Apex Court in Criminal Appeal decided on 02.9.2021 as well as order dated 26.10.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal no.1285/2021 (Mitesh Kumar J Sha vs The State of Karnataka) and order dated 25.10.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal no.1393/2011 (Ramawatar vs State of Madhya Pradesh) and submitted that the Court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurize the accused.
The Court observed that the matter requires consideration.
The Court has granted six weeks time to file counter affidavit for the respondents and two weeks time to file rejoinder affidavit. List after eight weeks before the appropriate Bench.
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as briefly discussed above, as an interim measure, till the next date of listing the petitioners shall not be arrested pursuant to the impugned First Information Report dated 24.5.2023, provided they cooperate in the investigation”, the order reads.