Sk Sahani vs State and Another

Suresh Kait, J.

Crl.MA 12504/2011 (exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CRL.M.C. 3521/2011 1.

Notice. Notice of the petition is accepted by learned APP for the State as well as by Mr. Sanjay Chauhan, Advocate for respondent no.2.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that an FIR No.720 dated 28.06.2006 u/s 52A/63/68A of the Copyright Act and under 292 IPC, was registered against the petitioner on the complainant of respondent no.2 on the information received by the police.

The respondent no.2 is an aggrieved party in the present case having settled all their disputes with the petitioner, qua present FIR vide Compromise Deed dated 1.10.2011 and submits that due to settlement arrived at between the parties, the present FIR be quashed.

On the other hand, learned APP submits that the owner of the copyright material has to be treated as a defendant in civil as well as in criminal prosecution u/s 68A of the Copyright Act. The punishment for contravention of Section 52A of the Copyright Act is punishable to the extent of 03 years and fine and u/s 62A of the said Act.

Learned APP for State has referred the case of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. in SLP (Crl.) No.8989/2010 wherein the Division Bench of the Supreme Court has referred three earlier decisions viz, B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, , Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, and Manoj Sharma v, State & Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 1 to the larger Bench for re-consideration whether the abovesaid three decisions were decided correctly or not.

Previously, I have taken the view on the basis of the judgment of the Division Bench of Mumbai High Court in Nari Motiram Hira v. Avinash Balkrishnan & Anr. in Crl.W.P.No.995/2010 decided on 03.02.2011 whereby the Division Bench of Mumbai High Court has permitted for compounding of the offences u/s 452/324 of Indian Penal Code which were of "non-compoundable" category as per Section 320 Cr. P.C. and the FIR No.50/2010 registered at Amboli Police Station, Andheri dated 06.02.2010, was quashed. Therefore, I am of the opinion that unless and until, the decisions in cases which have been referred above, are set aside or altered, the same decisions are the precedent and binding effect.

Respondent no.2 who is the aggrieved person is present in person with his counsel who has duly identified him. On instructions, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that, he has compromised all issues with the petitioner and he does not want to pursue the present case further and has no objection if the present FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.

Though, I find force in the submissions of learned APP for the State, however, keeping in view the number of judgments of the Apex Court and various High Courts whereby offence u/s 320(C) IPC has been compounded.

Since the matter has been compromised inter se parties and respondent no.2 is no more interested in pursuing the present FIR, therefore, in the interest of justice, I quash the FIR No.720/2006 u/s 52A/63/68A of the Copyright Act and Section 292 of IPC registered at PS Lajpat Nagar and the proceedings emanating therefrom.

However, in view of the submissions made by learned APP and the fact that police machinery has been used and precious time of the Court has been consumed, therefore, while quashing the abovementioned FIR, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- with "Beggars Home, Lampur Border near Narela, Alipur, New Delhi" within two weeks from today and the receipt of the same be placed on record.

Accordingly, Crl.M.C.3521/2011 is allowed on the above said terms.