The High Court granted the petitioner's prayer to drop Respondents 2 and 3 and quash the FIR against them. The court relied on an amicable settlement and cited Swati Verma. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Leave granted to drop Respondent No.6. FIR against Respondents 2 and 3 was quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2310 OF 2004
Rajeshkumar Upadhyaay .. ..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. ..Respondents
A.M.Saraogi for petitioner
Mr.B.H.Mehta for respondent No.1
Shri Avish Kayser for Respondent Nos.4 and 5
CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKER &
P.V.KAKADE, JJ.
DATE : 7TH FEBRUARY, 2005.
P.C.
. The petitioner seeks leave to drop the
Respondent No.6. Leave is granted. Amendment to the
cause title to be carried out forthwith.
2. Heard the advocates for the Petitioner,
Respondent No.1 and Respondent Nos.4 and 5. Neither the
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are present nor their advocate.
However, the affidavit filed on their behalf disclose
that they are agreeable for grant the relief as prayed
for by the petitioner.
3. The Petitioner, as stated by him in the
: 2 :
Petition, had engaged the services of Respondent No.6
for the purpose of preparation of Music Album and it
appears that in terms of the agreement between the
parties the Respondent No.6 was not supported to render
his services to any other person for the specified
period without prior consent of the Petitioner. It is a
complaint of the petitioner that Respondent no.6 in
violation of the said agreement worked for Respondent
Nos.2 to 5 for preparation of separate Album without the
knowledge and consent of the petitioner, therefore, the
petitioner had lodged a complaint under Section 406, 420
r/w 34 of I.P.C. and r/w 51, 52A, 62, 68A of Copy
Rights Act. In course of time, it is the case of the
petitioner that the petitioner had amicably settled the
matter with the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and therefore, he
does not want to proceed with the criminal case against
the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is further case of the
Petitioner that pursuant to the order passed by the
Magistrate under Section 156 of Criminal Procedure Code,
the Police have already registered the FIR against all
the respondents including Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and as
the Petitioner had amicably settled the matter with
Respondent Nos.2 and 3, the Petitioner does not want to
proceed against the said Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
: 3 :
Petitioner therefore prays for quashing of the FIR
against the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. The same is not
objected by the Respondent Nos.4 and 5. The learned APP
on behalf of Respondent No.1, though has not consented,
has not opposed any order being passed in the matter.
4. In the circumstances bearing in mind the law
laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Swati Verma
vs. Rajan Verma and Ors. reported in 2004 SCC(Cri.) 25
and considering that the parties have arrived at
amicable settlement, the relief in the nature asked for
deserves to be granted. Hence the order in accordance
with prayer clause (a) as far as it relates to the case
against the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is concerned. The
Petition accordingly disposed of with no order as to
costs.
(R.M.S.Khandeparkar,J.)
(P.V.Kakade,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR against Respondents 2 and 3 deserves quashing in the light of amicable settlement between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Swati Verma vs. Rajan Verma and Ors.Followed¶23
2004 SCC(Cri.) 25 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Rajeshkumar Upadhyaay
The State of Maharashtra
R.M.S.Khandeparkar
P.V.Kakade
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court