Purushottam Lal Karsh vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that the impugned FIR discloses a cognizable offense against the petitioner. Therefore, no interference was called for under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the FIR or granting interim relief. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra & others. The Court did not grant the prayer for compensation for harassment. The Court directed the Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to ensure the investigation is concluded within six weeks from the date of the order and a police report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. is submitted before the competent court.

Facts

The petitioner, Purushottam Lal Karsh, filed a writ petition challenging an FIR (No. 0213/2022) registered at Darri Police Station, Korba. The petitioner alleged the FIR was registered falsely and malafidely based on a complaint by respondent No. 4, and sought compensation for harassment. The State, through the Deputy Advocate General, argued that the investigation revealed the petitioner and co-accused were involved in replacing original set-top box IDs with blank ones and using cloning machines to insert duplicate IDs. This allegedly led to GST evasion as recharge amounts were collected from one original ID, but GST was payable only on that single ID. The police seized 58 set-top boxes with cloned IDs, 2 cloning machines, and 97 blank IDs from the petitioner's office. The State contended that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offense under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and the Cable TV Network Regulation Act, 1995, did not override the Penal Code.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR No. 0213/2022 registered by Darri Police Station is liable to be quashed as being unauthorized, bad in law, and contrary to the provisions of the Cable TV Network Regulation Act, 1995, and settled Supreme Court precedents (State of Haryana & Others vs. Bhajan Lal & Others, Rajiv Thapar vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi)? Petitioner's argument: The FIR is illegal and should be quashed. The State's argument: The FIR discloses a cognizable offense under Section 420 IPC, and the Cable TV Network Regulation Act, 1995, does not prohibit prosecution under the Penal Code for offenses that also fall under the Act. The investigation is at an initial stage, and the seizure of equipment supports the allegations. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for harassment due to malicious prosecution? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner sought compensation of Rs. 5 lakh for harassment caused by malicious prosecution. The State's argument: Not explicitly recorded, but implicitly opposed by arguing the FIR discloses a cognizable offense and the petition should be dismissed.