Case Note & Summary
The applicants, Sanjay Gupta (a film director and producer) and a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, were named as accused in FIR No.47 of 2012 registered at Versova Police Station for offences under Sections 417, 419, 465, 468, 469, 471, 473, 474, 475 IPC read with 34 IPC and Section 66(d) of the Information Technology Act, 2008. The FIR was lodged by Sub-Inspector Vishal Jadhav based on information that someone was using the name and official seal of the Commissioner of Police, BrihanMumbai, without permission, and publishing it on a website called 'glamsham.com'. The advertisement promoted the movie 'Shootout at Wadala' and claimed that the Commissioner of Police would give a lecture on organized crime at Mehboob Studio on 29.2.2012, displaying the police emblem. The applicants filed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR and investigation. The court examined whether the FIR disclosed any criminal offence. It found that the advertisement was a promotional gimmick for a film and did not deceive anyone or cause any wrongful gain or loss. There was no forgery of any document, and the essential ingredients of cheating and forgery were absent. The court held that the FIR did not make out any offence and was an abuse of process of law. Consequently, the court quashed the FIR and the investigation.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Inherent Powers - The court examined whether the FIR alleging misuse of the Commissioner of Police's name and emblem in a film advertisement constituted an abuse of process. Held that the FIR did not disclose any criminal offence and was liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of process (Paras 1-11). B) Indian Penal Code - Cheating and Forgery - Sections 417, 419, 465, 468, 469, 471, 473, 474, 475 IPC - Ingredients of Offence - The court found that the advertisement did not deceive anyone or cause any wrongful gain/loss, and there was no forgery of any document. Held that the essential ingredients of cheating and forgery were absent (Paras 4-10). C) Information Technology Act - Publishing False Information - Section 66(d) - The court noted that the advertisement was a promotional gimmick and did not involve any dishonest or fraudulent intention. Held that the offence under Section 66(d) was not made out (Paras 4-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR and investigation against the applicants for alleged offences under Sections 417, 419, 465, 468, 469, 471, 473, 474, 475 IPC read with 34 IPC and Section 66(d) of the Information Technology Act, 2008, should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC for being an abuse of process of law.
Final Decision
The court allowed the application and quashed the FIR No.47 of 2012 and the investigation carried out on that basis.
Law Points
- Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC
- Abuse of process of law
- Quashing of FIR
- Ingredients of cheating and forgery
- Misuse of official position
- Information Technology Act
