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,
... Respondent
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
Dated :24/08/2009
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.
vsv