:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2673 OF 2017
BETWEEN
M/s Hathway Cable & Datacom Limited
No.137/138 Hathway House
Infantry Road
Bengaluru - 560 001
Rep. by its authorized signatory
Mr. Pradeep B.V
Son of Mr. Venkatesh
Aged about 39 years. ... Petitioner
(By Sri. Arvind Kamath .K - Sr. Counsel for
Sri. Anand Muttalli - Advocate)
AND
1. State by Hiriyur Police Station
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor
High Court
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd
Futerex Marathon - 18th Floor
A wing, NM Joshi Marg
Lower Parel (East), Mumbai - 400013
Rep.by Mr. Nilesh Anant Sawant
Residing at 104, E Wing
Saikrupa Co-op Hsg Society
Plot No.55, Sector-11 Kamothe
Mumbai - 410209. ... Respondents
(By Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP for R-1;
:2:
Sri. S. Vinod - Advocate for R-2)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the
complaint and FIR registered in Cr.No.34/2017 registered
by the 1st Respondent dated 28.02.2017 for the offence
punishable under Section 63, 65, 37 and 51 of Copy Right
Act vide Annexure-A and B which is pending before the
Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.,) and JMFC, Hiriyur, Chitradurga
District.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Reporting
Settlement, this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned Senior counsel Shri Arvind Kamath for the petitioner / accused and the learned HCGP for the State who are present before court physically.
2. The petitioner M/s. Hathway Cable & Datacom Limited, represented by its authorized signatory Mr. Pradeep B.V. who is arraigned as accused No.2 has filed this petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in Cr.No.34/2017 by the Hiriyur Town P.S., Chitradurga District, for the offences punishable under Sections 63, 65, 37 and 51 of the :3: Copyright Act, 1957, which is pending before the Court of the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Hiriyur, Chitradurga District.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under: The petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is a Multi System Operator (hereinafter referred to as 'MSO') which is engaged in the business of distribution of television channels to local cable operators after obtaining necessary licenses / agreements from the copyright owners and broadcasters. The petitioner - company is duly represented by its authorized signatory Mr. Pradeep B.V who is arraigned as an accused. Annexure-"C" is the copy of the Board Resolution issued by the petitioner.
4. The second respondent, namely Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., had filed a complaint against M/s. Swamy Digital Cable Network, represented by its Proprietor Mr. B.T. Ekanathaiah alleging that they were illegally transmitting / retransmitting signals of the second respondent in Hiriyur, Chitradurga District, in collusion and connivance with the petitioner. Subsequent :4: to registration of the said complaint, the police arraigned the present petitioner and another as accused in the said FIR. Hence, the present petitioner aggrieved by the registration of the complaint by the first respondent in Cr.No.34/2017 on the basis of the complaint given by the second respondent dated 28.02.2017 for offences punishable under Sections 63, 65, 37 and 51 of the Copyright Act, has filed this petition seeking to quash the complaint as well as the FIR.
It is stated that the second respondent has filed the said complaint against the petitioner / accused with an intention to cause harassment to the petitioner by suppressing the vital fact that the petitioner executed 'Distributorship Agreement & Interconnect Agreement for Digital Addressable Cable Television System' (DACS) dated 26.10.2016 with the second respondent. On the said ground also, this petition is filed seeking intervention for exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint in Cr.No.34/2017 registered by the first respondent based upon the complaint filed by the second respondent.
:5:
5. Learned Senior counsel Shri Arvind Kamath has emphasized on Annexures "A" and "B" which are copies of the complaint and FIR in Cr.No.34/2017, Annexure-"C" which is the copy of the Board Resolution dated 21.03.2017, Annexure-"D" which is the copy of the Distribution Agreement dated 26.10.2016 executed between the petitioner and the second respondent, Annexure-"E" which is the Model Interconnection agreement between MSO and Local Cable Operator dated 18.06.2016, Annexures-"F" and "G" which are the copy of the complaint and FIR of Mangalore, Annexure-"H" and "J" being the copy of the complaint and FIR of Bychapura P.S., Devanahalli Taluk. These are all the annexures produced by the learned Senior counsel for the purpose of reference in this petition seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the accused in Cr.No.34/2017. It is his contention that the first respondent / Hiriyur Police have registered a case against the accused without verifying the contents of those documents and without conducting a preliminary enquiry in order to record an FIR and register the crime. The Police have registered the crime against the :6: accused without looking into the terms of those documents executed between the complainant and the accused.
Hence the petitioner who is arraigned as accused has approached this court by filing this petition seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated against him. In addition to those documents, the learned Senior counsel has emphasized on a letter dated 15.12.2020, written by the second respondent / complainant to Hiriyur P.S. relating to FIR No.34/2017 dated 28.02.2017. This letter relating to issuance of license for distribution of ZEEL Pay Channels, has been addressed to the Station House Officer, Hiriyur P.S. Chitradurga District, wherein it is specifically stated as follows:
"We would like to place on record that we had lodged FIR under reference against Mr.Eknathaiah of Swami Digital Cable Network, Hiriyur and Hathway Cable & Datacom, Bangalore.
Issue of piracy is resolved post signing of additional agreement dated 14/08/2017 for additional area and :7: acquisition of new networks by Hathway Digital Private Ltd. (earlier known as Hathway Cable and Datacom Ltd.) with Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd (ZEEL), whereby it was authorized to distribute / exhibit ZEEL channels in Chitradurga area."
6. A perusal of the letter reveals that the issue between the parties is resolved. Therefore, keeping in view the letter dated 15.12.2020 forwarded by the Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited addressed to the Station House Officer of Hiriyur P.S. where the case in Cr.No.34/2017 is pending for the aforesaid offences, as reflected in the FIR said to have been recorded, there is no substance to proceed further either for investigation or to submit any report as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. On these premise, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner seeks for intervention under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. If not, certainly there shall be a miscarriage of justice. On all these grounds, learned Senior counsel seeks to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the :8: accused in Cr.No.34/2017 registered by the Hiriyur P.S. which is pending before the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Hiriyur, Chitradurga District.
7. The learned HCGP for the State, referring to the letter dated 15.12.2020 fairly submits that the issue of piracy is resolved post-signing of an additional agreement dated 14.08.2017, which is revealed in this letter. Therefore, he concurs that there is no substance even to register the case by recording an FIR in Cr.No.34/2017 and to proceed against the accused. Consequently, he submits that the submission of the learned Senior counsel regarding the letter dated 15.12.2020 be considered and this petition be disposed of in terms of the said letter in view of the fact that the issue of piracy which emerged in between the complainant and the accused, has been resolved.
8. It is in this context of the contentions taken by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the letter dated 15.12.2020 requires to be considered and so also the documents in terms of Annexures which have been :9: facilitated for consideration for intervention of this matter for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused in Cr.No.34/2017 registered by the first respondent Hiriyur P.S. However, the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court to proceed with the offences against the accused.
But the inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accordance with the guidelines engrafted in such power in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of any court. Power to quash a criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute depending on the facts and circumstances of that particular case. In the present case on hand, although offences have been lugged against the accused in the FIR said to have been recorded by the Hiriyur P.S. against the accused, but continuation of the criminal proceedings will : 10 : be an exercise in futility when dispute between the parties is settled since securing the ends of justice is the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes or acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB (2012 (10) SCC
303), has extensively dealt with matters relating to the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused persons in respect of compoundable offences. The said judgment of the Apex Court is squarely applicable to the present case on hand. If the power under Section 482 is not exercised, certainly the gravamen of the accused would be the sufferer. It has been held in the said judgment that : 11 : criminal proceedings can be quashed by the Court, if the Court is satisfied that the matter has been settled between the parties amicably and the parties are interested to restore peace and harmony between them. It is relevant to refer to the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision, wherein it is held thus:
"The power of the High Court in
quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or
complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise : 12 : of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime." However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and its social impact. In the given case on hand, the complainant and the accused have resolved their disputes by way of a letter dated 15.12.2020 and that letter has been forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Hiriyur, Chitradurga District, wherein the case in Cr.No.34/2017 came to be registered. In that letter, it is specifically stated that the issue of piracy is resolved between the parties.
10. Therefore, keeping in view the ratio of the reliance in the case of Gian Singh (supra), and so also the dispute arising between the complainant and the accused having been settled, it is appropriate to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner / accused. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner / accused No.1 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. : 13 : Consequently, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner / accused in Cr.No.34/2017 by the first respondent / Hiriyur P.S. where the FIR in the aforesaid crime is pending before the court of the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Hiriyur, Chitradurga District, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS