Allowed

Karan Singh v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Jan 2014WP/1995/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay quashed criminal proceedings against a restaurant owner for alleged copyright infringement regarding television broadcasting without a license. The court relied on a settlement between parties and the mercantile nature of the offence, applying guidelines from Gian Singh v. State of Punjab.

What did the court decide?

The criminal case No. 349/PW/11 is quashed. The petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 10,000 to the Police Welfare Fund.

Karan Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Intellectual Property | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

SMT 1/ 4 11 WP 1995-13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2013

¶3

Mr. Karan Singh, son of Mr. Jagdish Singh ) aged 31 years, residing at 1705, Bldg.1/B, ) Dreams Complex, Bhandup (West), ) Mumbai-400 078, owner of restaurant ) “Cafe Cabana” situated at Diagonally, ) Opp. Wockhardt Hospital, Mulund-Goregaon ) .. Petitioner Link Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai-400 080. ) (original Accused).

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra through Mulund ) Police Station, Mumbai. ) 2. Mr. Sachin Ramesh Gosavi, aged 30 years, ) residing at 3-35, Pragati Chawl, Shantilal ) Compound, Jawahar Nagar, Khar (East), ) Mumbai-400 051. ) .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Shreeram Shirsat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pradip J. Jaiswal, Advocate for the respondent no.2. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, A.P.P. for the State.

¶7

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & V.L.ACHLIYA, JJ. DATED: 7^th January, 2014.

¶8

ORAL JUDGMENT :- (Per V.L. Achliya, J.)

¶9

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent, taken up for final hearing.

¶10

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking quashing of Criminal proceeding in Criminal Case No. 349/PW/11 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 27^th Court at Mulund, Mumbai, for the reasons set out in detail in the petition.

¶11

SMT 2/ 4 11 WP 1995-13

¶12

In nut shell, it is the say of the petitioner that on the basis of complaint lodged by the respondent no.2, the respondent no.1 has registered offence u/s. 63 and 69 of the Copyright Act, 1957 vide C.R. No.977/11 as against the petitioner for alleged live telecasting of DLF IPL 2011 Cricket match on Plazma Television set installed in the Cafe Cabana run by the petitioner, without requisite licence from the sole licencee i.e. M/s. MSM Discovery Private Limited. Petitioner was arrested and produced before the Court. He was released on bail. On completion of investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 27^th Court at Mulund, Mumbai. Subsequent to filing of chargesheet, the settlement has arrived between the petitioner and respondent no.2. Petitioner has assured the company-M/s. MSM Discovery Private Limited that in future he will not infringe the copyright of said company and also expressed regret for their act of infringement of right of said company. Petitioner has also paid requisite amount for utilizing the satellite signals of said company.

¶13

The respondent no.2 i.e. the complainant has filed affidavit in reply thereby recorded his no objection to quash the proceeding in view of settlement arrived between the parties.

¶14

We have heard the learned Advocates representing the petitioner, the respondent no.2 and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the offences registered against the petitioner are not serious in nature and they have no impact over the society. The offences for which the petitioner are prosecuted are purely financial and mercantile in nature and basically they are private and personal in nature. In view of the statement

¶15

SMT 3/ 4 11 WP 1995-13

¶16

arrived between the parties there are bleak chances to convict the petitioner and continuation of such case would put the accused to great hardship.

¶17

We have examined the facts of the case, the nature of the offence and its overall impact over the society. In our view, the offences registered against the petitioner are in respect of infringement of copyright which are purely financial and mercantile in nature and quashing of such proceeding will have no serious impact over the society. The punishment provided for the offences with which the petitioner is charged are not too harsh. Therefore, keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC Page 303 , we are of the view that it is a fit case to invoke our extra ordinary jurisdiction to quash the proceeding. We are, therefore, inclined to allow this petition and pass the following order:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(i) The Criminal Case No. 349/PW/11 (arising out of C.R. No. 977/11 registered with Police Station, Mulund for offences u/s. 63 and 69 of the Copyright Act, 1957) which is now pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 27^th Court at Mulund, Mumbai is hereby quashed.

¶20

(ii) Petitioner shall pay Rs.10,000/- as a cost of proceeding to the Police Welfare Fund by crediting the amount with their Account within three weeks from the date of passing of this order.

¶21

SMT 4/ 4 11 WP 1995-13

¶22

(iii) The copy of order to be sent for information and necessary action to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 27^th Court at Mulund, Mumbai.

¶23

(iv) With this order and direction, the Writ Petition be marked as disposed of.

¶24

(V.L.ACHLIYA, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

Karan Singh v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan Singh v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Janardan Saju Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prakash Irana Yamgavali and Ors. Vs Dy. Regional Transport Officer and Ors.

Shobha Kashinath Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nilkantheshwar Kala, Krida, Sanskrutik and Manoranjan Mandal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vijayanand Pandurang Ghadage Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suvaranyug Sanskrutik and Krida Mandal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.