Abdulla vs State Of Kerala Rep.By Public ... on 2 September, 2008

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Abdulla vs State Of Kerala Rep.By Public ... on 2 September, 2008

Bench: R.Basant

       

  

  

 
 
  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

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court