Delhi High Court
Sanjay Kumar Behera & Ors. vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 5 January, 2012
Author: Sudershan Kumar Misra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Crl. M.C. NO. 10 OF 2012
Date of Decision: 05.01.2012
SANJAY KUMAR BEHERA & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vivek Singh, Advocate
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State
Mr. Devinder Singh Khatana,
Advocate for respondent No. 2 with
Respondent No. 2 in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure praying that the FIR bearing No. 573/2000 relating to
Police Station Sarojini Nagar, under Sections 52A/63/68A of the Copyright
Act along with charge sheet dated 2.6.2001, be quashed on the ground that
the petitioners, who are the accused in the matter, have settled their disputes
with the complainant/respondent No.2, Shri Satish Kapoor. A copy of the
settlement agreement dated 30.09.2011 entered into between the parties
enumerating, inter alia, that the complainant, Shri Satish Kapoor, has, "no
claim whatsoever against the second party in respect of the matter of
controversy ...". It is also stated that the accused/petitioners herein have no
claim against Mr. Satish Kapoor.
2. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the State
that Section 63 of the Copyright Act contemplates imprisonment for three
years along with fine. It also envisages a minimum sentence of six months
extendable upto three years. It is also a non-compoundable offence. He has
also pointed out that a charge sheet in this matter was filed in June 2001 and
the matter has been pending trial for the last 10 years.
3. Both counsel for the petitioner as also for respondent No. 2, who
are approbating this settlement, jointly pray for grant of the relief sought in
the petition. They rely upon three decisions of this Court, being Sanjay Singh
vs. The State (NCT) of Delhi & Anr. 2008(1) JCC 650; Mukesh Bansal vs.
State & Anr. 2009(2) JCC 898, and Rishiraj vs. State 2009(1) JCC 265.
4. The case of Sanjay Singh (supra) dealt with a matter under
Section 307 IPC read with Section 27, 54, 57 of the Arms Act, where the
charge-sheet had also been filed. Charges in the matter were also framed and
the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence. At that stage, the complainant
did not want to proceed with the complaint. Both the parties in that case
were also found to be in the same business. The court proceeded to allow the
application and quashed the proceedings since in its view, in the absence of
support from the complainant in the case, there is hardly any chance of
success of the prosecution and therefore, no useful purpose would be served
by continuing with the criminal proceedings.
5. In this case also, the matter is stated to be posted for the
prosecution evidence. Although it is true that in the matter of Sanjay Singh
(supra), none of the provisions under which the prosecution was launched
contemplated a minimum sentence, however, the ratio of the decision is that
the proceedings be quashed not because there is no minimum sentence
prescribed under any of the sections in terms of which the prosecution was
launched, but because no useful purpose would be served in continuing with
criminal proceedings where there is hardly any chance of success of the
prosecution once the complainant himself does not wish to support the
prosecution.
6. Similarly in case of Mukesh Bansal (supra), the matter was
brought before this Court pursuant to a settlement between the parties. The
prosecution was quashed on the ground that no useful purpose would be
achieved by allowing the prosecution to continue. Even in the third case
titled Rishiraj vs. State (supra), the same view has been taken.
7. The statement of the complainant, Shri Satish Kapoor, who is
arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the petition, has also been recorded separately.
He is identified by his counsel Shri Devinder Singh Khatana.
8. Mr. Sant Kumar Singla, petitioner No. 2, has also filed an
affidavit approbating the petition in the terms of the agreement. The
petitioners Mr. Sanjay Kumar Behera, Mr. Sant Kumar Singla and Mr. Arjun
Agarwal, are all present in person in Court today. They are identified by their
counsel, Shri Vivek Singh. The copies of documents identifying the parties
have also been annexed to the petition.
9. Both counsel for the petitioners as well as counsel for
respondent No. 2 have handed over their Vakalatnamas in Court today and
the same are taken on record.
10. Counsel for the petitioners also states, on instructions received
from his clients, that his clients shall remain bound by the terms of the
settlement.
11. Counsel for respondent No. 2 approbates this statement. Counsel
for the petitioner also states that his clients have settled all their disputes with
the complainant and that they have no claims in this regard against the
complainant.
12. Looking to the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, and keeping in
mind the statement of the complainant recorded in court today, I am of the
view that no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the trial in
this case.
13. I am mindful of the fact as pointed out by learned counsel for the
State, that prosecution has been pending before the Trial Court for more than
10 years, and that the State machinery has been engaged in the matter. Under
the circumstances, the FIR No. 573/2000 registered at P.S. Sarojini Nagar
under Sections 52A/63/68A of the Copyright Act and the charge sheet dated
2.6.2001 and all consequent proceedings pending in the Trial Court are
quashed, subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- by each petitioner as well as the
second respondent, to the Bar Council of Delhi Indigent and Disabled
Lawyers Account, within one week from today.
14. The petition is disposed of in terms of the settlement with the
above directions.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
JANUARY 05, 2012
rd
