Karnataka High Court
M/S Hathway Cable And Datacom ... vs State By Hiriyur Police Station on 7 January, 2021
Author: K.Somashekar
: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
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
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. 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
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
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
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
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
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 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.
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
