Karnataka High Court

M/S Hathway Cable And Datacom ... vs State By Devanahalli Police ... 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. 2671 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 Devanahalli 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. Arshad Khully
                             :2:



     Residing at Deonar Municipal Colony
     Building No.14, Room No.6
     Govandi Mumbai - 400 043.          ... Respondents


(By Sri. Rohith B.J., HCGP for R-1;
    R-2 served - unrepresented)

      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.25/2017 registered
by the 1st Respondent dated 27.02.2016 and 01.03.2017
for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420
r/w 34 of IPC vide Annexures-A & B which is pending
before the Hon'ble Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC,
Devanahalli.

      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.1 has filed

this petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings

initiated against him in Cr.No.25/2017 by the Devanahalli

P.S. Bengaluru Rural District, for the offences punishable

under Sections 406, 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of

the IPC, 1860, which is pending before the Court of the

Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli.

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 Mr. Venkatesh and Mr. Srinivas of M/s. Venkat

Cable, alleging that they were illegally transmitting /

retransmitting signals of the second respondent in

Baichapura Village, Devanahalli Taluk, in collusion and

connivance with the petitioner. Subsequent to

registration of the said complaint, the police arraigned the

present petitioner and two other persons as accused in

the said FIR. Hence, the present petitioner aggrieved by

the registration of the complaint by the first respondent in

Cr.No.25/2017 on the basis of the complaint given by the

second respondent dated 27.02.2017 for offences

punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 read with

Section 34 IPC, 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.25/2017 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.25/2017, 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

15.02.2017, Annexures-"F" and "G" which are the copy of

the complaint and FIR, Annexure-"H" and "J" being the

copy of the complaint and FIR of Hiriyur dated

28.02.2017. 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.25/2017. It is his contention that

the first respondent / Devanahalli 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 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

Devanahalli P.S. relating to FIR No.25/2017 dated

1.3.2017. This letter relating to issuance of license for

distribution of ZEEL Pay Channels, has been addressed to

the Senior Inspector of Police, Devanahalli P.S. Bangalore

Rural District, wherein it is specifically stated as follows:

"We would like to place on record that we had lodged

FIR under reference against Mr. Venkat and Mr. Srinivas

of Venkat Cable, Bychapura, Tal: Devanahalli, Bangalore

Rural and Hathway Company, Bangalore.

Issue of piracy is resolved post signing of the

agreement dated 02/07/2018 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 Devanahalli 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 Devanahalli P.S. where the case in

Cr.No.25/2017 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.25/2017 registered by the Devanahalli

P.S. which is pending before the Court of the Addl. Civil

Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli.

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 agreement dated

02.07.2018, 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.25/2017 and to proceed

against the accused. Consequently, he submits that the

submission of the learned Senior counsel regarding the

letter dated 4.12.2020 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 4.12.2020 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.25/2017 registered by the first

respondent Devanahalli 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 Devanahalli P.S. against

the accused, but continuation of the 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 4.12.2020 and that

letter has been forwarded to the Inspector of Police,

Devanahalli, Bangalore Rural District, wherein the case in

Cr.No.25/2017 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