Sambhajikhopade And ORS. v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4276 OF 2021
1. Sambhaji Khopade Residing at 1, Rasta Peth Pune Samarth, Pune.
2. Yatin Gupta Age: 44 Occu. Vice President, Content Residing at: Flat No. E-701, Marvel Isola, Mohammadwadi.
3. Abhijeet Deshmukh Age: 36, Occu. Associate Vice President, Operations, Resi. at: Safal Parivesh, G-201, Pralhad Nagar, Ahmedabad.
4. GTPL Hathway Limited through its Authorised Singatory, Dipesh V. Shah, Ass. General Manager, A company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its corporate office at GTPL House, Shree One, Opposite Armeida, Sindhu Bhavan Road, Near Pakwan-Cross Road, Bodakdev, Ahmedbad - 380059.
... Petitioners
Versus
Page No. 1 of 5
1. State of Maharashtra Through Samarth Police Station Pune, Maharashtra.
2. Amish Shashikant Dhume 5/71, Ganesh Bhavan Hindu Colony Gali, Dadar (East), Mumbai 400 014.
3. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., A company registered Companies Act, 1956 having registered office at 18th floor, Marathan Futurex N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013.
... Respondents Mr V. S. Kapse for Petitioners.
Ms Manjula Rao i/by Kunal Rane for the Respondent No.2. Mr J. P. Yagnik, APP for the Respondent No.1-State. CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE & R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE : 23rd JUNE 2023 Order (Per R. N. Laddha, J.) :- Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.
Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately, with the Page No. 2 of 5
consent of and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties.
3.
The Petitioners have filed this Criminal Writ Petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash FIR No. 93 of 2016 dated 25 May 2016, registered with Samarth Police Station, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 63 and 69 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioners seek quashing on the ground that they have amicably settled their dispute.
4.
When this Criminal Writ Petition was placed before us, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Respondents No.2 and 3, jointly stated that the dispute was purely civil and had been resolved. They submitted that continuing the prosecution would serve no purpose given their settlement. They submitted that this case falls under the purview of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v/s. State of Punjab & Anr.1 and Narinder Singh & Ors. v/s. State of Punjab and Anr.2 1 (2012) 10 SCC 303.
2 (2014) 6 SCC 466.
Page No. 3 of 5
5.
Learned APP for the Respondent No.1 submits that appropriate orders may be passed.
6.
The record shows that Respondents No.2 and 3 filed consent affidavits on record. On behalf of Respondent No.3, Akshay Mahadik, who is claiming to be the authorized representative of Respondent No.3, is present before the Court and stated that Respondent No.3 has no objection to quashing the impugned FIR against the Petitioners given their settlement. Upon questioning, he reiterated his statements in his affidavit and was identified by his counsel. 7.
We have examined this case in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh and Narinder Singh (supra). Based on the material on record, it is clear that this dispute has a predominantly civil nature. Allowing criminal prosecution to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court and serve no purpose given the parties settlement. To ensure justice is served, it would be appropriate to quash the impugned FIR. The consent affidavits filed on behalf of Respondent No.3 support the prayer of quashing of the FIR. Having said so, and on the facts noted above, the impugned FIR bearing C.R. No. 93 of 2016, registered with Samarth Police Station, Pune against the Page No. 4 of 5
Petitioners needs to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the impugned FIR No. 93 of 2016 dated 25 May 2016, registered with Samarth Police Station, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 63 and 69 of the Copyright Act, 1957, is quashed and set aside, subject to condition that Petitioner No.4 and Respondent No.3 pay a cost of Rs.50,000/- each with the Legal Services Authority, within three weeks of this order being uploaded.
8.
Rule is made absolute in these terms and this Petition is disposed of subject to payment of cost as directed above. R. N. LADDHA, J.
NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
BIPIN DHARMENDER PRITHIANI DHARMENDER PRITHIANI Date: 2023.06.27 15:25:59 +0530 Page No. 5 of 5