IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2906 of 2007()
1. M/S.MALAYALAM COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED, ... Petitioner
2. M/S.KAIRALI TELEVISION,
3. JOHN BRITTAS, AGED 45 YEARS,
4. P.I.MOHAMMEDKUTTY @ MAMMOOTTY,
5. SHIBU CHAKRAVARTHY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, Vs
1. P.K.SANIL KUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS,
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2906 of 2007
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of August, 2009 O R D E R
This revision is at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C. No.127 of 200 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode. Case arose on a private complaint preferred by respondent No.1 against petitioners/accused 1 to 5 and accused Nos.6 to 8. Allegation is that in pursuance to the conspiracy between petitioners and accused Nos.6 to 8, they, in furtherance of their common intention to telecast the film "Malabaril Ninnoru Manimaran" through petitioner No.2 and obtain illegal gain allegedly fabricated an agreement for selling the rights and contents of the same, committed criminal breach of trust and by misusing the negative and positive of the said film committed offences as alleged. Learned magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 51, 62 and 63 of the Copy Rights Act against petitioners and accused Nos.6 to 8. Cognizance to the extent it concerned the petitioners is under challenge in this revision.
2. Petitioners and respondent No.1 have filed Crl.M.A. No.8231 of 2009 reporting that the matter has been settled between CRL. R.P. No.2906 of 2007
-: 2 :-
them out of court. It is stated in paragraph 5 of the joint statement that matter is compromised with the petitioners as well as the remaining accused (accused Nos.6 to 8) who are not parties to this proceeding. Respondent No.1 has no grievance against any of the accused in C.C. No.127 of 2007. It is therefore requested that invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") entire proceeding in C.C No.127 of 2007 may be quashed to secure the ends of justice.
3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and respondent No.1. They asserted that the entire matter has been settled between all the accused including petitioners and respondent No.1. Offences for which cognizance has been taken by the learned magistrate and are not compoundable. But in this case parties have settled the dispute. This is a private dispute between the parties. It has been amicably settled between them. In Nikhil Merchant v. State of U.P. (2008 (3) KHC 955) it has been held that technicalities should not stand in the way of the court interfering with any such private dispute where parties have settled their disputes. In this case in the light of the compromise reached between the parties there is no possibility of evidence being let in to support the CRL. R.P. No.2906 of 2007
-: 3 :-
allegations against petitioners and accused Nos.6 to 8. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to invoke the power under Sec.482 of the Code. There is no reason why the benefit of this order should not be given to accused Nos.6 to 8 though they are not parties in this revision in the light of the statement in paragraph 5 of the joint statement that entire dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.1 including accused Nos.6 to 8 has been settled amicably.
4. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.8132 of 2009 is allowed. Entire proceeding in C.C.No.127 of 2007 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode is quashed. I make it clear that the benefit of this order will also go to accused Nos.6 to 8. Revision petition is disposed of as above. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.