Shri Ajay Chadha vs State and ''Screen Craft'', Proprietary Concern

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent as well as the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. The petition coming on for admission is considered for final disposal.

The facts of the case are as follows:-

That the second respondent herein had initiated proceedings for offences allegedly committed under Sections 63 and 66 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (Hereinafter referred to as the ''CR Act'', for brevity) and had lodged a complaint in this regard, in respect of which, a case had been registered in CC No. 22022/2004, for infringement of the provisions of the CR Act, as aforesaid. The second respondent had also instituted a civil suit for recovery of money under certain transactions between the petitioner and the respondent. The same had resulted in a compromise and substantial sums of money was paid by the petitioner in favour of the respondent herein. It was also agreed that all matters would be settled between them. However, on the petitioner and the respondent approaching the court below seeking compounding of the offences alleged, the court below has rejected the application, on the footing that the CR Act does not provide for compounding of any offences and that unless there was a specific provision, it is not open for the parties to seek compounding of the offence. It is in this background that the petitioner is before this court.

The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, on his opinion being sought as to whether an offence under the such special enactment can be compounded if the Act is silent, would submit that it is impermissible unless the special enactment itself has indicated so. However, having regard to the present legal position, namely, that even when the offences are expressly declared to be non-compoundable, it is possible for the High Court in exercise of its power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash certain proceedings to give a quietus to the matter depending on the nature and gravity of the crime involved as laid down in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, and given the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the matter is purely personal between the parties and does not involve a serious offence and even the alleged infringement having been sorted out between the parties and given the fact that the offences, at best, would attract punishment of not more than 3 years, it is a fit case where matters ought to be given a quietus when the parties seek such settlement between them to be recorded. Therefore, the prosecution being rendered a futile exercise in the de facto complainant no longer interested in prosecuting the case, the present petition is allowed. The proceedings before the court below stand quashed.