IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3249 of 2008()
1. ABDULLA, AGED 53 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. SHAMEER, AGED 26 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
... Respondent
2. SANJEEV KOSHI, S/O. KOSHI, ASSISTANT
For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
For Respondent :SRI.M.A.FIROSH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :02/09/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.3249 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2008
ORDER
Petitioners face indictment in a prosecution under Section
63 and 65 of the Copy Right Act and Sections 482 and 483 I.P.C.
Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report
submitted by the police after due investigation. During the
pendency of the proceedings, the defacto complainant and the
petitioners have settled their disputes. The defacto complainant,
who is arrayed as the 2nd respondent herein, has settled all his
disputes with the petitioners/accused. He has filed an affidavit
to confirm that the dispute has been settled and the offences
alleged have been compounded. The 2nd respondent has
appeared through counsel to confirm such settlement. It is
prayed that in view of the settlement and composition, powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked as enabled by the
dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008
A.I.R SCW 2287] and the surviving prosecution against the
petitioners may be brought to premature termination.
2. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor.
The learned Public Prosecutor after taking instructions submits
that there has been a bona fide and genuine settlement and the
Crl.M.C. No.3249 of 2008 2
State does not want to oppose the prayer for quashing of
proceedings.
3. The offences alleged are not compoundable. But
notwithstanding the fact that that the offences are not
compoundable, I am satisfied that the extraordinary inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum
in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab can safely be
pressed into service. The dispute is one which is purely personal
between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent. No question of
public policy or public interest is involved and I am satisfied that
the prayer in this Crl.M.C can be allowed.
4. In the result:
i) This Crl.M.C is allowed;
ii) C.C.No.231of 2005 pending before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court, Ernakulam against the petitioners is hereby
quashed;
iii) Needless to say, the proceedings under Section 446
Cr.P.C, if any, pending against the petitioners or their sureties
shall be disposed of in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
/true copy/
P.A to Judge