Rai Chattopadhyay,J.

1. Petitioner, who is the accused person in Bhadraswar Police Station Case No. 464 of 2014 dated 29.12.2014, under Sections 409/120B IPC, has moved this Court, in this case with his prayer that the entire proceedings pursuant to the said FIR should be quashed.

2. Petitioner’s status is that he is a local cable television operator and proprietor of ‘M/s Deep Vision’ and operates in the area of Barabazar and Padripara, within jurisdiction of Chandanagar Police Station. Petitioner retransmits the encrypted signals of several television channels, obtained by him from the ‘multi system operator’, namely M/s Digi Cable Comm in decrypted form, to the individual consumers. Their relationship interse, though existed in a different form, from a previous date, was renewed by execution of an agreement dated 1st February, 2013. This may be taken as an induction point of their relationship, in an era when the ‘digital system’ was introduced.

3. Before this, the petitioner used to manage business of a body of about 40 (forty) local cable television operators, as a ‘head’ of the same, and the said body or association, was operating in the name and style “United Cable Communication” (United Cable Comm). It is stated that after the agreement dated 1st February, 2013, was executed between the sole proprietorship firm of the petitioner as above named and the multi system operator namely, Digi Cable Comm., its business transaction with the said association of cable television operator, namely, “United Cable Communication”, was terminated vide a letter of the petitioner, dated 14th January, 2014. In fact, United Cable Communication, stopped functioning from 14th January, 2014.

4. For the whole of 2013, since the date of entering into the said agreement and till 28th December, 2014 and even thereafter, petitioner continued with his business, in terms of the said agreement dated 1st February, 2013.

5. On 29th December, 2014, the said FIR was lodged by one Mr. Manoj Bajaj, a constituted attorney of Star India Pvt. Ltd and a specific police case was lodged under Sections 409/120B IPC read with Sections 37, 51, 63, 65 and 69 of the Copyrights Act, 1957.

6. The FIR has contended the allegation of breach of trust, as well as illegal acts to have been committed by the accused firms/persons, in contravention of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 (CTN Act) and the TRAI Regulations, attracting the aforestated provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Copyrights Act, 1957, as well.

7. The contentions of the FIR may be reproduced in a nutshell, as follows:-

Complaint is a constituted attorney of ‘Star India Pvt. Ltd’, a body corporate, and the complaint was made on behalf of it. Company owns, manages controls and broadcasts several television channels, which are not free for the consumers, but ‘paid’ channels. Company transmits signals through ‘encrypted/scrambled’ from, to the Multi System Operators, who it says are agents of the company, to operate area wise. The MSO’s would ‘decrypt’ that signal, through ‘Integrated Digital Satellite Receiver cum Decoder Box’ (DSR in short), to be provided by the company. MSO’s would retransmit the ‘decrypted’ signals to cable/DTH operators, for being broadcasted to the individual subscriber/consumer.

8. After describing the mode and manner in which the company broadcasts its channels to a large section of audience, the complainant says that the petitioner, who it says, is the owner of “United Cable Communication”, who is a local cable operator at Hooghly and runs business of providing television channels, in Kolkata, caused linking to the network of M/s. Digi Cable Comm (a multi system operator) and has been illegally transmitting/retransmitting signals of the company by taking ‘DAS’ feed and demoduling and distributing the same, resulting into wrongful loss to the company and wrongful gain to the present petitioner.

9. Complainant has stated that the company has suffered huge revenue loss, for such type of illegal acts by the petitioner. It has also alleged breach of trust against the multi system operator, i.e, M/s. Digi Cable Comm. Company says the broadcasting in a way as alleged by the petitioner, has violated broadcasting rights of the company and the provisions of law, governing the field.

10. Mr. Mukherjee, defending the petitioner, has first and foremost submitted that neither the provision under Section 409 IPC nor any of those under the Copyrights Act, 1957, should be attracted against his client, in this case. He says, that the petitioner is neither the ‘merchant’ or the ‘agent’ of the company on whose behalf the FIR has been lodged, so that the provisions under Section 409 IPC could be attracted against him. He emphasizes that there is no ‘entrustment’ of any ‘property’ by the company to the petitioner in order to construe any ‘breach of trust’ in respect of that ‘property’ by the petitioner.

11. Mr. Mukherjee, would further submit that, subsequent to promulgation of the ‘Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995’, all disputes regarding broadcasting of cable television would be governed by the said Act and not under any other enactment. According to him, the petitioner cannot be booked or tried excepting under the provisions of 1995 Act and initiation of this case against him is only illegal and not sustainable.

12. Further pointed out are the facts, that much ahead of the date of the complaint, the association of cable operators, namely “United Cable Communication” had stopped functioning, and information thereof was duly made available to the MSO, i.e, M/s. Digi Cable Comm., vide his letter dated 14th January, 2014. His relationship with the said association was severed as soon as he entered into an agreement with M/s. Digi Cable Comm on 1st February, 2013.

13. He submits, there is no cognizable case made out against his client, in the FIR and thus, the entire proceedings may be quashed.

14. Mr. Binoy panda, appearing for the State, has counter arguments. He submits at the outset, that after filing of charge-sheet by police, there is no scope for this court, exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, 1973, to go into the question of propriety of the criminal proceedings against the charge sheeted accused person, that is the petitioner here. This argument is, however, not acceptable in view of the findings of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anand Kumar Mohatta & Anr. vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home & Anr. reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706, [LQ/SC/2018/1446] is herein below:-

“14. First, we would like to deal with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 2 that once the charge-sheet is filed, petition for quashing of FIR is untenable. We do not see any merit in this submission, keeping in mind the position of this Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59 [LQ/SC/2011/817] : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23] [LQ/SC/2011/817] . In Joseph Salvaraj A. [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59 [LQ/SC/2011/817] : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23] [LQ/SC/2011/817] , this Court while deciding the question whether the High Court could entertain the Section 482 petition for quashing of FIR, when the charge-sheet was filed by the police during the pendency of the Section 482 petition, observed : (SCC p. 63, para 16)

“16. Thus, from the general conspectus of the various sections under which the appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the complainant's FIR. Even if the charge-sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge [Joesph Saivaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, 2007 SCC OnLine Guj 365] could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant's FIR, charge-sheet, documents, etc. or not.”

15. Even otherwise it must be remembered that the provision invoked by the accused before the High Court is Section 482 CrPC and that this Court is hearing an appeal from an order under Section 482 CrPC. Section 482 CrPC reads as follows: “

482. Saving of inherent powers of the High Court.—Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

16. There is nothing in the words of this section which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court [G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636, [LQ/SC/2000/198] para 7 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513. Umesh Kumar v. State of A.P., (2013) 10 SCC 591, [LQ/SC/2013/992] para 20 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 338 [LQ/SC/2013/992] : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 237] . Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced and the allegations have materialised into a charge-sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge-sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court.”

15. He would further submit that even after promulgation of 1995 Act, as stated earlier, the Copyrights Act, 1957, has not been ceased to be applied in an appropriate case. Other point of his argument would be that materials are available in this case to show ‘entrustment of property’, and also petitioner’s breach of trust with regard to the same. Accordingly, he says that there are strong prima facie materials available against the petitioner, to make out a cognizable case.

16. Question remains as to whether petitioner can be termed as a ‘merchant’ or ‘agent’ or/the complainant company and whether has been entrusted with any ‘property’ by the company of which he commits breach of trust, as alleged. Further question remains as to whether the State can or not prosecute under the Copyrights Act, 1957, after promulgation of 1995 Act, in case of an alleged offence relating to cable television broadcasting. It is also to be determined by this court whether any cognizable case has been made out in FIR against the petitioner or not.

17. The scope of the statutory power of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, 1973, has been enumerated by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in various verdicts, like the one mentioned below:-

State of Maharastra & Ors. vs. Arun Gulab Gawali reported in 2011 CrLJ 89. The Hon’ble court held:-

“12. The power of quashing criminal proceedings has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and the Court cannot be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or other wise of allegations made in the FIR/complaint, unless the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion. The extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims and caprice. However, the Court, under its inherent powers, can neither intervene at an uncalled for stage nor can it ‘soft-pedal the course of justice’ at a crucial stage of investigation/proceedings. The provisions of Article 226, 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after called as ‘Cr.P.C’) are a device to advance justice and not to frustrate it. The power of judicial review is discretionary, however it must be exercised to prevent the miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave errors and to ensure that stream of administration of justice remains clean and pure. However, there are no limits of power of the Court, but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking those powers.”

18. Following the principles which have been provided as guidelines, while exercising powers of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, 1973, this court is to assess now whether the petitioner’s prayer is eligible to be allowed or not.

19. Petitioner’s status as the ‘local cable operator’ under the multi system operator (MSO) namely, M/s. Digi Cable Comm. is accepted. It is also accepted, that petitioner as a ‘head’ of group of local cable operators, in the name and style “United Cable Communication” was operating under the said multi system operator, till end of January, 2013. On 1st February, 2013, he has personally entered into a contract with the said MSO regarding broadcasting rights. Allegations have been made in the FIR regarding unauthorized broadcasting of paid channels of the complainant company by the United Cable Communication led by the petitioner, though without specifying any particular period of time. Petitioner has not denied his involvement with the United Cable Communication till the date he personally enters into contract with the MSO, w.e.f 1st February, 2013 and even thereafter. As a matter of fact petitioner has affirmed that United Cable Communication stopped functioning w.e.f 14th January, 2014 and informed the ‘MSO’ vide a letter dated same, i.e, 14th January, 2014, that there would be no further business transaction of the “MSO” namely Digi Cable Com with the ‘body’ of local cable operator namely United Cable Communication, meaning thereby severance of such business transaction from 14th January, 2014 only.

20. Accordingly, this is found to be a disputed question of the fact as to whether there is any infringement of broadcasting laws by United Cable Communication headed by the petitioner till the date it stopped functioning, as claimed by the petitioner. A disputed question of fact cannot be addressed by this court, while exercising powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C,1973.

21. The finding as above may be persuaded by referring a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this court reported in 2017 SCC Online Cal 3823 (In re: Gurmeet Singh), where the Hon’ble Bench was pleased to hold that disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated at a premature stage in case under Section 482 Cr.P.C, 1973. Uncontroverted allegations of illegal and unauthorized transmission of encrypted pay channels of defecto complainant, in that case, prompted the court, not to interfere in any way.

22. On the premises as above, it can be concluded that there is no scope for this court, in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, 1973, to interfere into the matter, at this stage. Hence, the present case would not succeed. It is however made clear that all the points argued on behalf of the respective parties in this case are kept open, which the parties can agitate before the trial court, at the appropriate stage.

23. Criminal Revision being CRR 573 of 2015 is dismissed.

24. Case diary be returned.

25. Urgent certified website copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all the requisite formalities.