Delta Corporation Ltd vs State of Goa

N.M. Jamdar, J

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The respondents awaive service. Taken up for final disposal.  Â

By this Petition, the Petitioner has sought quashing of the FIR No.130/2017 and also the complaint dated 17 March 2017. The ground on which

the relief has been sought is that the Petitioner and the Complainant have compromised their dispute.  Â

The Petitioner is engaged in the business of gaming and entertainment. The Petitioner, on board of its vessel, has electronic games and slot

machines, etc. For entertainment of the customers, the Petitioner plays songs for which, according to the Petitioner, it had obtained licences. Â

The Respondent No.3 filed a Civil Suit No. 8/2017 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, alleging infringement of copyright assigned and

authorised to the Respondent No.3 in respect of the songs played by the Petitioner. Written statement was filed by the Petitioner and the Suit was

contested. While the suit was pending, the Respondent No.3 also filed a complaint in the Panaji Police Station, alleging that the Petitioner had

committed an offence under Sections 63 and 69 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The complaint was transferred to the Porvorim Police Station.

Initially, Respondent No.2 did not register an FIR, based on the complaint of Respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 filed an  application before

the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panaji. The learned Magistrate directed further investigation and that the FIR be registered against the

Petitioner under Sections 63 and 69 of the Copyright Act.Â

Mr. Rao, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Pai, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 submitted that the dispute between the

Petitioner and Respondent No.3, regarding the copyright issue has been settled and consent terms have been filed before the learned District Judge-

1, Panaji and based on the consent terms, an order has also been passed by the learned District Judge. An affidavit has been filed by the authorised

representative of Respondent No.3, reiterating this position. Mr. Rao and Mr. Pai jointly pray that, in view of the settlement arrived at betweenÂ

the parties, the criminal proceedings initiated be quashed and set aside, so that the settlement can be given full effect.           Â

The Petitioner has invoked the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. Power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings involving non-

compoundable offences in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties came up for consideration of the Apex Court in the case of Gian

Sing vs. State of Punjab and another ,  and also in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir and ors. vs. State of Gujarat and another . The Apex Court

took review of the law in Gian Sing and held that the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in

exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of

the Code. In which cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have

settled their dispute, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. The Apex Court observed that,

before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. It was held that the criminal cases having

predominatingly civil character stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,

mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions. In the cases where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have

resolved their entire dispute, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and

the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and

prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise. This

decision was subsequently reiterated in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir, wherein the Apex Court culled out certain parameters. The Apex Court

held that the provision does not confer new powers, and it only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.Â

Applying the above position of law to the case at hand, we find that the parameters indicated by the Apex Court are satisfied. The dispute had

arisen between the Petitioner and Respondent No.3, which led to filing of the complaint, is relating to infringement of copyright assigned and

authorised to the Respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 put the criminal law in motion, essentially for safeguarding its own commercial interest. The

dispute, therefore, is of commercial nature. In view of the compromise, which has been accepted by the learned District Judge, quietus will have to

be given to the dispute between the parties, so that overall settlement is achieved. In view of the stand taken by Respondent No.3, there is no

possibility of conviction being recorded against the Petitioner.

Considering this position, we are of the opinion that continuing with the criminal proceedings, in such circumstances, will be a needless harassment

to both, the Petitioner and Respondent No.3. Therefore, this is a fit case where the FIR registered against the Petitioner and the complaint requireÂ

to be quashed exercising inherent jurisdiction of this Court.Â

Accordingly, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). FIR No. 130/2017 and the Complaint dated 17 March 2017 are quashed and

set aside.  No order as to costs.Â