Delhi High Court
Sk Sahani vs State & Anr on 21 October, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C.3521/2011
% Judgment delivered on: 21st October, 2011
SK SAHANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikram Singh, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP for State.
Mr. Sanjay Chauhan, Advocate for
respondent no.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment? NO
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO
in the Digest?
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl.MA 12504/2011 (exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C. 3521/2011
1. Notice. Notice of the petition is accepted by learned APP for the State
as well as by Mr. Sanjay Chauhan, Advocate for respondent no.2.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that an FIR
No.720 dated 28.06.2006 under Section 52A/63/68A of the Copyright Act
and under 292 IPC, was registered against the petitioner on the complainant
of respondent no.2 on the information received by the police.
3. The respondent no.2 is an aggrieved party in the present case having
settled all their disputes with the petitioner, qua present FIR vide
Compromise Deed dated 1.10.2011 and submits that due to settlement
arrived at between the parties, the present FIR be quashed.
4. On the other hand, learned APP submits that the owner of the
copyright material has to be treated as a defendant in civil as well as in
criminal prosecution under Section 68A of the Copyright Act. The
punishment for contravention of Section 52A of the Copyright Act is
punishable to the extent of 03 years and fine and under Section 62A of the
said Act.
5. Learned APP for State has referred the case of Hon‟ble Supreme
Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. in SLP (Crl.)
No.8989/2010 wherein the Division Bench of the Supreme Court has
referred three earlier decisions viz, B.S. Joshi V. State of Haryana (2003) 4
SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.
(2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma Vs, State & Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 1 to
the larger Bench for re-consideration whether the abovesaid three decisions
were decided correctly or not.
6. Previously, I have taken the view on the basis of the judgment of the
Division Bench of Mumbai High Court in Nari Motiram Hira Vs. Avinash
Balkrishnan & Anr. in Crl.W.P.No.995/2010 decided on 03.02.2011
whereby the Division Bench of Mumbai High Court has permitted for
compounding of the offences under Section 452/324 of Indian Penal Code
which were of „non-compoundable‟ category as per Section 320 Cr. P.C. and
the FIR No.50/2010 registered at Amboli Police Station, Andheri dated
06.02.2010, was quashed. Therefore, I am of the opinion that unless and
until, the decisions in cases which have been referred above, are set aside or
altered, the same decisions are the precedent and binding effect.
7. Respondent no.2 who is the aggrieved person is present in person
with his counsel who has duly identified him. On instructions, learned
counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that, he has compromised all issues
with the petitioner and he does not want to pursue the present case further
and has no objection if the present FIR and the proceedings emanating
therefrom are quashed.
8. Though, I find force in the submissions of learned APP for the State,
however, keeping in view the number of judgments of the Apex Court and
various High Courts whereby offence under Section 320(C) IPC has been
compounded.
9. Since the matter has been compromised inter se parties and
respondent no.2 is no more interested in pursuing the present FIR, therefore,
in the interest of justice, I quash the FIR No.720/2006 under Section
52A/63/68A of the Copyright Act and Section 292 of IPC registered at PS
Lajpat Nagar and the proceedings emanating therefrom.
10. However, in view of the submissions made by learned APP and the
fact that police machinery has been used and precious time of the Court has
been consumed, therefore, while quashing the abovementioned FIR, the
petitioner is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- with "Beggars Home, Lampur
Border near Narela, Alipur, New Delhi" within two weeks from today and
the receipt of the same be placed on record.
11. Accordingly, Crl.M.C.3521/2011 is allowed on the above said terms.
12. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
OCTOBER 21, 2011
Rd/RS
