Karnataka High Court
Mr. Yash Vardhan Kanoi vs State Of Karnataka on 4 January, 2021
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7350/2020
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8452/2018
In Crl.P.No.7350/2020:
BETWEEN:
1. Mr.Yash Vardhan Kanoi
S/o Srikanth Kanoi,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at No. F-78, 5th Cross,
Manyatha Layout,
Bengaluru-560077.
Presently R/at No.230,
NE, 4th St. Unit-510, Miami,
FL, 33132, U.S.A.
2. Miss Prathibha Nair
D/o Govinda Nair,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at No.15, Shobha Karel,
"B" Block, Jakkur,
Bengaluru-560064.
Presently R/at No.74,
Bennett St. Unit-10,
Neutral Bay, NSW-2089,
Australia.
...Petitioners
(By Sri.Halashetti Jagadish Sidramappa, Advocate)
2
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By Sampigehalli Police Station,
Bengaluru City
Now R/by Special P.P
Bengaluru-560001.
2. R. Satheesh Kumar,
General Manager (Ops.)
EIPR (India) Private Limited,
No.7, 8th Avenue,
Ashok Nagar,
Chennai-600083
Tamilunadu State.
... Respondents
(By Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP for R1;
Sri. Raghavendra C, Advocate for R2)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to quash the order dated 19.06.2017
taking cognizance of alleged offences against accused
Nos. 2 and 3 (petitioners herein) and to quash the entire
Criminal Proceedings in C.C.No.18721/2017, arising
out of Cr.No.29/2016, registered by the Sampigehalli
P.S., Bangalore for the offence punishable under
Sections 51A, 63, 68, 68A of Copyright Act, presently
pending on the file of the IX-ACMM court, Bangalore
against the petitioners, who are Accused No.2 and 3
therein.
3
In Crl.P.No.8452/2018:
BETWEEN:
Apoorva Agarwal
D/o Arun Agarwal,
Aged about 23 years,
R/at No.205,
Vishal Nest Apartment,
Talakavery Layout,
Amruthahally,
Bengaluru.
...Petitioner
(By Sri.Shivananda R, Advocate for
Sri.Nagabhushana Reddy K, Advocate for petitioner)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By Sampigehalli Police Station,
Bangalore.
Rep. by SPP
High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore-560001.
2. R. Satheesh Kumar,
General Manager (Ops.)
EIPR (India) Private Limited,
No.7, 8th Avenue,
Ashok Nagar,
Chennai-600083.
... Respondents
(By Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP for R1;
Sri. Raghavendra C, Advocate for R2)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to quash the order dated 19.06.2017
4
taking cognizance alleged offences against the petitioner
and to quash the entire proceedings against the above
petitioner in C.C.No.18721/2017 pending on the file of
IX-ACMM court, at Bangalore for offence punishable
under Sections 51(A), 63, 68, 68(A) of Copyright Act,
1957.
These Criminal Petitions coming on for admission,
this day, the court made the following:
COMMON ORDER
Sri. Halashetti Jagadish Sidramappa, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.7350/2020; Sri. Shivananda R for Sri. Nagabhushana Reddy K, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.8452/2015; Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned HCGP for the State and Sri. Raghavendra C, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent are present before the Court physically.
2. Heard the arguments and perused the materials placed on record.
5
3. These petitions are filed by the petitioners who are arraigned as accused No.1 in Crl.P.No.8452/2018 and accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Crl.P.No.7350/2020 seeking for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in C.C.No.18721/2017 arising out of Cr.No.29/2016 registered by the Sampigehalli P.S., Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 51-A, 63, 68, 68-A of Copyright Act, 1957, pending on the file of the IX ACMM, Bangalore.
4. Petitioner/accused No.1 in Crl.P. No.8452/2018 and petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Crl.P.No.7350/2020 have filed their separate joint memorandum of compromise petitions under Section 320 (1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. enclosing their I.D. Proofs and passports. Due to virtual hearing, petitioners appeared through video conferencing and their counsel including the counsel for Respondent No.2 have identified through their physical appearance and there is no dispute about 6 their identification. In the compromise petition, the petitioners have stated that due to intervention of elders and friends, and on the basis of the written apology and undertaking given by the petitioners herein, the 2nd respondent has agreed to compromise on the complaint pending before the court below and is agreeable for the same to be quashed without any conditions, except as stated herein. It is further stated that the petitioners shall neither act in any manner detrimental to the interests of Hindustan Unilever Limited nor shall they indulge in, or aid the infringement of any intellectual property rights belonging to Hindustan Unilever Limited. Hence, in view of amicable settlement between the parties and also in view of the judgment in Gain Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the matter may be allowed by quashing the entire charge sheet in C.C.No.18721/2017 pending on the file of the IX ACMM Court, Bengaluru.
7
5. At a cursory glance of the compromise petitions filed by the petitioners and also amicable settlement arrived between the parties, it indicates that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings both the parties have compromised the matter and compounded the offences. Therefore, the petitioners and 2nd respondent have filed a compromise petitions under Section 320(1) & (2) of Cr.P.C. before this Court. By virtue of the compromise, the parties sought for quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against them.
6. The factual matrix discloses that the 2nd respondent herein has filed a complaint before the 1st respondent police against the petitioners for violation of copyright Act. Based upon the complaint, the 1st respondent police registered FIR in Cr. No. 29/2016 against the petitioners and after thorough investigation, laid the charge sheet in C.C.No.18721/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 51-A, 63, 68, 68-A 8 of Copyrights Act, 1957. But both the parties have filed their compromise petitions seeking for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings initiated against them for the aforesaid offences. Though there is no specific provisions under the aforesaid Act indicating whether these offences are compoundable or not, but they are considered to be minor offences as they are punishable with imprisonment for a period of less than three years. According to the schedule-II appended to the Cr.P.C., they are bailable and non-cognizable in nature. Therefore, it is relevant to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gain Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 wherein it is held that, "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 three 9 years, held that it is fit case to record the compromise and quash the proceedings. "
7. In the light of the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and keeping in view the compromise petitions filed by the petitioners, this Court is of the considered opinion that, in view of the harmonious relationship between the parties to be maintained and also compounding of the offences, it is fit case to allow the petition and quash the proceedings by considering the joint compromise petition filed by the petitioners. Accordingly, the joint compromise petition filed by the petitioners are hereby accepted. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petitions filed by the petitioners/accused No.1 in Crl.P.No.8452/2018 and accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Crl.P.No.7350/2020 are hereby allowed quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against them in 10 C.C.No.18721/2017 pending on the file of IX ACMM, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 51-A, 63, 68, 68-A of Copyright Act, 1957.
Consequence upon the quashment of the above criminal proceedings, accused Nos. 1 to 3 have been absolved from the aforesaid offences.
Accordingly, ordered.
Sd/-
JUDGE JS/-