Gujarat High Court
Paresh Babubhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat & on 4 February, 2014
Author: G.R.Udhwani
Bench: G.R.Udhwani
R/CR.MA/728/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 728 of 2014
===========================================================
PARESH BABUBHAI PATEL, OWNER OF M/S PRIYA CREATION....Applicant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondents
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MB GOHIL, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PATEL ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI
Date : 04/02/2014
ORAL ORDER
RULE. Respondents waive service. Considering the short dispute and settlement between the parties, Rule is heard today by consent of the parties. Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent seeks permission to file V.P. Permission is granted.
A short dispute gave rise to the incident in question. The applicant had purchased the software of embroidery designs, which was alleged to have been pirated software as claimed by 2nd respondent. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and respondent No.2 state that now matter has been settled. The complainant has now filed an affidavit acknowledging the settlement which is at Annexure C. Learned Counsel appearing for both the sides would urge this Court to quash the FIR.
Learned APP while vehemently opposing the Page 1 of 2 R/CR.MA/728/2014 ORDER quashing of the FIR would contend that the offences alleged against the petitioners under Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act are serious in nature, and would require trial.
The dispute predominantly appears to be of private character and in view of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012 (10) SCC 303), such dispute even if not compoundable, can be compounded under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Learned APP vehemently contended that the offences are of serious nature and notwithstanding the settlement, trial should be allowed to go on. Such an argument cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that when the dispute is of predominantly private character and the complainant having decided against supporting the prosecution case, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the trial, which may cause wastage of public time, money and energy.
Under the circumstances, the petition is allowed and the FIR and all others subsequent connected proceedings are quashed. The hardware seized by the Police shall be released.
Rule is made absolute to the above extent. Direct Service is permitted.
(G.R.UDHWANI, J.) sompura Page 2 of 2