IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRL.P.NO.4568/2018 BETWEEN MR. MANAS BANERJEE SON OF PARIL BANERJEE, GENERAL MANAGER, HYATT HOTEL, MG ROAD, BANGALORE, AND ALSO RESIDING AT FLAT NO.901, CONCORDE APARTMENT HOTEL, ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE - 560024.
(BY SRI JOSHUA H SAMUEL, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA HALASUR POLICE STATION, BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560001.
2. MR. THINAKARAN. W S/O. WILSON VISWARAJ COMPANY EXECUTIVE, NO.115, SREE COMPLEX, ST. JOHN'S ROAD, BANGALORE - 560042.
(BY SRI SHOWRI H.R, HCGP FOR R1, SMT. BHANU RAVINDRA, ADV. FOR R2.) ...PETITIONER RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.6574/2018 REGISTERED BY THE HALASOOR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU PENDING ON THE FILE OF IX ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 and the learned HCGP.
2. The case of the complainant is that he is a Senior Executive of a Company by name Phonographic Performance Ltd., which holds copyrights in respect of 200 sound recording companies. That on 31.12.2015 between 8.30 p.m. to 12.30 p.m., the petitioner without obtaining necessary license/permission from the complainant’s company was illegally using the sound recordings over which the complainant company was holding copyrights and hence, the complaint came to be lodged, resulting in C.C.No.6574/2018 on the file of IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 63 & 68(a) of the Copy Rights Act, 1957.
3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.2 that subsequently, the parties have arrived at a settlement and that the complaint came to be lodged on the ground that the petitioner was further using the rights which was initially granted to it under a license agreement executed by the complainant and the usage of the rights despite the lapsing of the agreement led to the filing of the complaint.
4. It is now submitted that the parties have worked out an amicable settlement and now the agreement stands extended and in that view of the matter, an application under Section 320(1) & 320(2) of Cr.PC came to be filed before the Trial Court praying that in view of the settlement, the court be pleased to acquit the accused persons.
5. The Trial Court on a vague reasoning has contrived to reject the same by holding that the ruling of the Apex Court does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case as the offences punishable are under Sections 63 & 68(a) of the Copy Rights Act, 1957, and as also under Section 420 of IPC.
6. In the opinion of this Court, the Trial Court appears to have misread the ruling of the Apex Court. The Apex Court in the case of GIAN SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS – (2012)10 SCC 303, in paragraph 58 has held as under:
“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the 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 the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.”
7. In the opinion of this Court, this is a fit case where this Court is required to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC as no purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to be taken to its logical end.
8. The parties were in a contractual relationship as a licensor and licensee and the unauthorized usage of copyrights is on account of the lapsing of the agreement. Now the said agreement having been renewed, the said period is also clothed with a semblance of legality. The parties have continued their business relationship and any prosecution would have adverse effects on their commercial relationship and hence, ends of justice would require that the petition be allowed.
9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.6574/2018 pending on the file of the IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.0004/2016 registered with the respondent- Police stands quashed.
KK CT-HR Sd/- JUDGE