Karnataka High Court
M/S Hathway Cable And Datacom ... vs State By Urwa Police Station on 6 January, 2021
Author: K.Somashekar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2672 OF 2017
BETWEEN
1. M/s Hathway Cable & Datacom Limited
No.137/138 Hathway House
Infantry Road
Bengaluru - 560 001
Rep. by its authorized signatory
Mr. Shirish Ruparal.
2. Mr. Rajan Gupta
Son of Mr. Niranjan Lal Gupta
Aged about 41 years
Managing Director
M/s Hathway Cable & Datacom Limited
No.805/806, Windsor
Office CST Road
Kalina Santacruz (E)
Mumbai - 400 098.
3. Mr. N.M. Rao
S/o Mr. Bhaskara Rao Nunna
Aged about 38 years
Content Head
M/s Hathway Cable & Datacom Limited
No.805/806, Windsor
Office CST Road
Kalina Santacruz (E)
Mumbai - 400 098.
:2:
4. Mr. Sangeeth Nigam
S/o Late Mr. Bipin Behari Nigam
Aged about 49 years
Head of Operations
Bengaluru City
M/s Hathway Cable & Datacom Limited
No.137/138 Hathway House
Infantry Road
Bengaluru - 560 001.
5. Mr. Nagaraj
Son of Mr. Swaminathan
Aged about 38 years
Administration Executive
M/s Hathway Cable & Datacom Limited
No.14/1, 4th Cross
Seethamma Road, R.S. Palya
Bengaluru - 560 033.
... Petitioners
(By Sri. Arvind Kamath, Sr.Advocate for
Sri Anand Muttalli - Advocate)
AND
1. State by Urwa 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. Jaiprakash Ramanand
Residing at No.3/9, Fhatakada Chaw
Dr. A.B. Road, Worli
Mumbai - 400 018. ... Respondents
:3:
(By Sri Rohith B.J., HCGP for R-1;
Sri. Vinod .S -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 Crime No.30/2017
registered by the 1st Respondent dated 28.02.2017 for the
offences punishable under Sections 37, 51, 63, 69 of
Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 420 and 379 of IPC,
1860 vide Annexures-A and B which is pending before the
III-JMFC., Mangalore.
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 petitioners and the learned HCGP for the
State who are present before court physically.
Petitioner No.1 is Accused No.2 in Cr.No.30/2017
registered by the Urwa Police and he has filed this petition
seeking to quash the said complaint and FIR for offences
punishable under Sections 37, 51, 63, 69 of Copyright
Act, 1957 and Sections 420 and 379 of IPC, 1860, and
which is pending before the III JMFC Court, Mangalore.
But however, Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are not parties to the
said Cr.No.30/2017 but they have filed this petition
aggrieved by the police notices issued by the first
respondent police under Section 41(A) of the Cr.P.C. and
seeking to quash the same.
2. The petitioner M/s. Hathway Cable & Datacom
Limited, represented by its authorized signatory Mr.
Shirish Ruparal who is arraigned as accused No.2 has
filed this petition seeking to quash the criminal
proceedings initiated against him in Cr.No.30/2017 as
stated supra.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:
The first 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 first petitioner - company was
previously represented by its authorized signatory Mr.
Pradeep B.V who is arraigned as an accused. Annexure-
"G" is the copy of the Board Resolution issued by the first
petitioner.
4. The second respondent, namely Zee
Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., had filed a complaint
against Mr. Dony of Trinity Satellite Systems and one Mr.
Shirish Ruparal, representative of the first petitioner. It
was alleged that Mr. Dony who was operating Trinity
Satellite Systems at Mitra Bhavan Building, Mangaluru
City was not authorized to distribute and transmit the
paid channels of the second respondent and that they
were illegally transmitting / retransmitting signals in
collusion and connivance with the petitioner. Subsequent
to registration of the said complaint, the police arraigned
the first petitioner and Shirish Ruparal as accused in the
said FIR. Hence, the present petitioner aggrieved by the
registration of the complaint by the first respondent in
Cr.No.30/2017 on the basis of the complaint given by the
second respondent dated 27.02.2017 for offences
punishable under Sections 37, 51, 63, 69 of Copyright
Act, 1957 and Sections 420 and 379 of IPC, 1860, 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.30/2017 registered by
the first respondent based upon the complaint filed by the
second respondent.
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.30/2017, Annexures-"C"
and "D" which are the police notices dated 16.03.2017
and 19.03.2017 in respect of Petitioners 2 and 3,
Annexures-"E" and "F" which are the police notices dated
19.03.2017 and 13.03.2017 in respect of Petitioners 4 and
5, on Annexure-"G" which is a copy of the Board
resolution dated 21.03.2017, Annexure-"H", the
Distribution Agreement dated 26.10.2016 executed
between the petitioner and the second respondent,
Annexure-"J" which is the Model Inter connection
agreement between MSO and Local Cable Operator dated
03.01.2017, Annexure-"K" which is the copy of the mail
dated 27.02.2017 sent by Petitioners 1 and 2, Annexure-
"L" being the covering letter issued by the first petitioner
to Respondent No.1 dated 6.3.2017, Annexures "M" and
"N" being the copy of the complaint and FIR of Devanahalli
P.S. dated 27.02.2017 and Annexures "P" and "Q" being
the FIR and complaint of Hiriyur P.S. 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.30/2017. It is his contention that the first
respondent / 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 accused
without looking into the terms of those documents
executed between the complainant and the accused.
Hence the first 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
4.12.2020, written by the second respondent /
complainant to Urwa P.S. relating to FIR No.30/2017
dated 28.02.2017. This letter relating to issuance of
license for distribution of ZEEL Pay Channels, has been
addressed to the Senior Inspector of Police, Urwa P.S.,
Ashok Nagar, Mangalore, wherein it is specifically stated
as follows:
"We would like to place on record that we had lodged
FIR under reference against Mr. Dony of Trinity Satellite
System, Kapikad, Mangalore and Mr. Ruparel of Hathway
Cable and Datacom Limited, Bangalore.
Issue of piracy is resolved post signing of additional
agreement dated 14/08/2017 by the 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
ZEE channels in Mangalore city area."
6. A perusal of the letter reveals that the issue
between the parties is resolved. Therefore, keeping in view
the letter dated 4.12.2020 forwarded by the Zee
Entertainment Enterprises Limited addressed to the Police
Inspector of Urwa P.S. where the case in Cr.No.30/2017 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 accused in
Cr.No.30/2017 registered by the Urwa P.S. which is
pending before the Court of the III JMFC Court,
Mangalore.
7. The learned HCGP for the State, referring to the
letter dated 4.12.2020 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.30/2017
and to proceed against the accused. Consequently, he
submits that the submission of the learned Senior counsel
regarding the letter dated 04.12.2020 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 04.12.2020 requires to be considered and so also
the documents in terms of Annexures which have been
facilitated for consideration for intervention of this matter
for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against the
accused in Cr.No.30/2017 registered by the first
respondent Urwa 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 Urwa P.S. against the
accused, but continuation of criminal proceedings will 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
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
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 04.12.2020 and
that letter has been forwarded to the Inspector of Police,
Urwa, Bangalore Rural District, wherein the case in
Cr.No.30/2017 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.
Consequently, the criminal proceedings initiated against
the first petitioner / accused in Cr.No.30/2017 by the first
respondent / Urwa P.S. where the FIR in the aforesaid
crime is pending before the III JMFC Court, Mangalore, is
hereby quashed. As a consequence, the police notices
issued by the first respondent in Cr.No.30/2017 in
respect of Petitioners 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively vide
Annexures "C", "D", "E" and "F" respectively, also stand
quashed.
In view of the disposal of this petition, I.A.No.1/2018
is dismissed as it does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KS
