Bombay High Court
Intelux Technologies Pvt. Ltd. And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 18 February, 2021
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: S. S. Shinde, Manish Pitale
Digitally
signed by
Vishwanath 1/7 4-CRWP-4086-2017.doc
Vishwanath S. Sherla
S. Sherla Date:
2021.02.19
11:39:19
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4086 OF 2017
ALONG WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 298 OF 2018
IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4086 OF 2017
1. Intelux Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
A company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956
Having its address at- Unit No. 2,
Electronic Co-op. Industrial Estate,
Off. Pune- Satara Road, Pune- 411 009.
2. Shri. Ravindra Narra
Director Intelux Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Having its address at- Unit No. 2,
Electronic Co-op. Industrial Estate,
Off. Pune- Satara Road, Pune- 411 009. ...PETITIONERS
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Dattawadi Police Station, Pune.
2. ACME Cleantech Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
(formerly known as ACME Tele Power
Limited)
Through its Managing Director
Mr. Manoj Kumar Upadhyay
Having place of business at-
Plot No. 152, Sector -45,
Gurgaon- 122002, Haryana.
3. Shri. Harendranath Tripathi
679, Sector- 10R
Gurgaon- 122016, Haryana. ...RESPONDENTS
...
Bhagyawant Punde
2/7 4-CRWP-4086-2017.doc
Mr. Abhijit Sarwate a/w. Ms. Ria Lohade i/b. Mr. Samanth Anchan for
Petitioners.
Ms. Kushboo Rupani i/b. HSA Advocates for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for State.
...
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATE : 18th FEBRUARY, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER MANISH PITALE, J.]:
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. The Petitioners have approached this Court by the present petition with prayer for quashing one FIR and two regular criminal cases pending against the petitioner. The FIR and private compliant leading to said regular criminal cases were registered at the behest of Respondent No. 2 (original complainant). Offences under Sections 63 and 69 of Copy Rights Act and Section 103 of Trade Mark Act were registered against the petitioner on the basis of grievance raised by Respondent No. 2.
3. Petitioners have stated before this Court that the Respondent No. 2 and the petitioners haven now settled their inter se dispute out of Court and that compromise is arrived at between them. It was further submitted that all Bhagyawant Punde 3/7 4-CRWP-4086-2017.doc the parties are agreed to abide by the obligations as per the terms of compromise and that therefore, grievance of Respondent No. 2 now stood satisfied.
4. An affidavit of authorised representative of Respondent No. 2 has been placed on record before this Court along with copy of resolution passed by Respondent No. 2-company authorizing the said authorised signatory to swear the affidavit on behalf of Respondent No. 2. In the said affidavit it has been stated as follows:-
2. I say that I have been made conversant with facts and circumstances of the matter and that I am now competent to affirm this affidavit.
3. I say that Respondent No. 2 had filed a private Criminal Complaint against Petitioners being Regular Criminal Complaint No. 404262 of 2008 alleging commission of offences of infringement of Copyright and Trademark u/S. 63 r/w. Sec. 69 of the Copyrights Act, 1957 and S. 103 of Trademarks Act and sought directions for registration of F.I.R. and investigation of offences, as alleged to being committed by Petitioners.
4. I say that the said Complaint was allowed vide order dated 14th October, 2008 by Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune. Accordingly, Respondent No. 2 through its ex-employee Mr. Harendranath Tripathi i.e. Respondent No. 3 and the Original Complainant, lodged an First Information Report ("FIR") dated 25th October, 2008 with Dattawadi Police Station, Pune, Maharashtra against Mr. Ravindra Narra and Mr. G.M. Thirumallesh of Intelux Electronics Power Limited (the "Accused") for the offences punishable under sections offences u/s. 63 r/w. S. 69 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and S. 103 of the Trademarks Act, 1999.
Bhagyawant Punde 4/7 4-CRWP-4086-2017.doc
5. I say that the Respondent No. 1 filed Charge Sheet with the J.M.F.C. Pune and Regular Criminal Case No. 403 of 2012 came to be registered with the Ld. J.M.F.C. and order for issue of process was passed by the Ld. J.M.F.C.
6. I say that in the meanwhile, the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 have amicably settled all disputes, owing to the out of court compromise and further Petitioner and Respondent have recorded their statement to this effect in the Order dated 4 th August, 2015 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Original Suit No. 1 of 2009.
7. I say that because of amicable settlement of all disputes with the Petitioner, Respondent No. 2 do not want to proceed or press the F.I.R. No. 3117 of 2008 registered with Dattawadi Police Station, Pune and Regular Criminal Case No. 400403 of 2012 against the Petitioner and for which the petitioner has approached this Honourable court seeking the relief of quashing said FIR and consequential criminal proceedings.
8. I say that for the purpose of getting the proceedings quashed as required under the criminal law, I being the authorized signatory of the Respondent No. 2, my consent is required. I am hereby, giving my consent for giving "No-Objection" for quashing of criminal complaint by consent.
9. I further say and submit that Respondent No. 2 and Petitioner have compromised the matter and have agreed not to case any allegation on each other and further to withdraw all allegations levelled against each other and there are no claims of whatsoever nature against each other.
10. I say that I have gone through the contents of this affidavit and understood the same and further I wish to submit that I have no objection for quashing the FIR No. 3117 of 2008 and consequential criminal proceedings. I also submit that I am giving my no objection on authorization by board of directors. It is out of my own free will and without there being force, coercion, fraud and undue influence.
Bhagyawant Punde
5/7 4-CRWP-4086-2017.doc
5. We had interacted with the representative of Respondent No. 2 though video conferencing and it was submitted on behalf of Respondent No. 2 that now no grievance survived in the matter and that the writ petition could be disposed of in terms of prayers made on behalf of petitioners.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Giansingh v. State of Punjab and Another1 has held that, the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offence arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolves their entire dispute. In this category of cases, 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 with the victim. It is further held that, as inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (I) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to 1 2012 (10) SCC 303 Bhagyawant Punde 6/7 4-CRWP-4086-2017.doc prevent abuse of the process of any court.
7. Applying ratio of aforesaid judgment to the facts of the present case, it becomes evident that in the present case the dispute between the parties is of civil and commercial nature and that thereafter parties have came together and settled the dispute amicably. Therefore, it is clear that the Respondent No. 2 is not going to support the allegations made against the petitioners and that further continuation of proceedings in pursuance of said FIR and complaint would be of no consequence.
8. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed and Regular Criminal Case No. 404262 of 2008 and Regular Criminal Case No. 400403 of 2012 in F.I.R. No. 3117 of 2008 of Dattawadi Police Station, Pune pending before Judicial Magistrate Fist Class at Pune, are quashed. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
9. In the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that, the petition can be allowed subject to condition that the petitioners should deposit appropriate costs for good cause. Accordingly, we direct the petitioners to deposit sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), within two weeks from today, in the account details mentioned herein below.
Bhagyawant Punde
7/7 4-CRWP-4086-2017.doc
Name of Bank of Account: : Children Aid Soc Donation
Bank Account No. : 02370100005612
Bank Name : UCO Bank
Branch : Matunga Mumbai
IFSC Code : UCBA0000237
10. In compliance of aforesaid directions the petitioners shall place on record, a receipt within a period of two weeks before this Court. It is made clear that this order will come into operation only after compliance of aforesaid condition.
11. List under the caption 'For Compliance' on 15.03.2021.
12. Criminal Application No. 298 of 2018 is filed by the Petitioners for allowing petitioners to carry out amendment in the main petition. In view of disposal of the present writ petition, nothing further survives for consideration in the application, hence, same stands disposed of.
( MANISH PITALE, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.) Bhagyawant Punde