IN CRR 1922 OF 2019 - CAL HC -Criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool to settle commercial disputes: Calcutta High Court while quashing police case against Zee Entertainment due to lack of ingredients to make out case of extortion against it
Justice ShampaDutt (Paul) [17.07.2023]

Read More: Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited v. The State Of West Bengal

Simran Singh

New Delhi, July 19, 2023: While deciding a case between Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited(petitioner) and Multi Reach Media Private Limited (respondent) regarding non-payment of subscription fees, the Calcutta High Court held that the petitioner's demand for outstanding payment as per the agreement did not amount to extortion or criminal intimidation.The Court also observed that the dispute was commercial in nature and more appropriate for civil remedies.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice ShampaDutt (Paul) analysed the complaint and found that there were no ingredients to make out a case of extortion against the petitioner and noted that the petitioner had acted as per the agreement to demand their dues, and there was no dishonest intention or putting the respondent in fear. “To make out an offence of extortion punishable under Section 385 IPC, there has to be prima facie material to show that the accuseds/petitioners had put the opposite party no. 2 in fear of injury to that person or any other person. There is no material on record to prove that the petitioners had intention to put the complainant in fear or any other person."

The Bench stated that the petitioners had acted as per the agreement between the parties to demand their legitimate dues and there was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners. Thus, there being no ingredient required to prima faciemake out a case under Section 385 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against the petitioners, thus the present case was liable to be quashed.

In the matter at hand, the petitioner had demanded outstanding dues from the respondent, threatening disconnection of their channels if not paid, in result to which the respondent had filed a police complaint against the petitioner alleging extortion and criminal intimidation under Section 385 and 120B  of IPC.

The petitioner had filed a revision petition in High Court seeking to quash the police case against them and argued that the dispute was purely commercial in nature and there was no criminal intent on their part since they were merely acting as per their interconnection agreement to demand legitimate dues.

The respondent party had admittedly approached Telecom Disputes and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) challenging the legality and validity of the Disconnection notice dated 18.04.2019. In such circumstances, the application filed under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C) and the subsequent First Information Report was misconceived, malafide and vexatious one.

The High Court thus, allowed the revision petition and quashed the police case against the petitioner. The Court observed that the criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool to settle commercial disputes, and the present case was a fit one for quashing to prevent abuse of process.