Allowed

Santosh Madhukar Pokale v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Sept 2015APL/866/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 866/2015 allowed the applicant to quash criminal proceedings regarding a copyright FIR pending since 2009, as the underlying dispute had been amicably settled by the accused and complainant. Subject to payment of Rs.5000 costs or equivalent book donation, the impugned sessions case was ordered to be quashed; failure to comply would result in dismissa

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings under C.C. No.870/PW/2012 quashed subject to payment of Rs.5000 costs OR donation of books worth Rs.5000 to Kirtikar Law Library within four weeks.

Santosh Madhukar Pokale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

Sr.No.34

¶2

APL 866.15

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 866 OF 2015

¶4

Mr. Santosh Madhukar Pokale ..Applicant Versus 1.The State of Maharashtra 2. Senior Inspector of Antop Hill Police Station, Mumbai 3. Prakash Sopan Ingle ..Respondents

¶5

Mr. S. S. Butala i/b. S.S.Butala and associates, advocates for the applicant.

¶6

Mr. S. K. Shinde, PP along with Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State. Respondent No.3 present-in-person.

¶7

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & R. G. KETKAR, JJ.

¶8

DATE : 4^th SEPTEMBER, 2015.

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP for the State and respondent No.3 in person.

¶11

The criminal application is filed under the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing and setting-aside the proceedings of C.C. No.870/PW/2012 pending on the file of learned 51^st Metropolitan Magistrate at Kurla, Mumbai. The said case arises out of registration of FIR bearing Spl.L.A.C.No.19 of 2009 with Antop Hill Police Station, at the instance of respondent No.3, for the offences punishable under Sections 63(B) and 64 of the Copy Right Act, 1957.

Shubhada S Kadam 1/3

Sr.No.34

APL 866.15

Pending trial, the parties settled their dispute amicably, and in pursuance of an understanding arrived at between them, have approached this Court for quashing the proceedings of the subject criminal case by consent. Respondent No.3 has filed an affidavit, which is annexed at page 70 of the application. In paragraph 4, he has stated that he has no objection for quashing the proceeding arising out of the subject FIR. Respondent No.3 is personally present before the Court. On being questioned, he specifically stated that he has gone through the affidavit and has fully understood the contents thereof and has no objection, if the subject criminal case and FIR are quashed and set-aside. He also stated that he is giving no objection for quashing the subject criminal proceedings out of free will and without there being any pressure or coercion.

¶16

It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of complaint, it transpires that the allegations are totally personal in nature. In these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014 AIR SCW 2065], we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. However, at the same time, costs need to be saddled on the parties for using the police and judicial mechanism for settling their personal disputes.

¶17

Accordingly, the criminal application is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/-, or in the alternative, donating books worth Rs.5000/- to the “Kirtikar Law Library” by the applicant. The applicant shall produce the receipt in

Shubhada S Kadam 2/3

Sr.No.34

APL 866.15

respect of the costs/donation thereof on the file of this Court within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, the criminal application shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Court.

¶22

Subject to above, the criminal application stands disposed of.

¶23

[R. G. KETKAR, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶24

3/3

¶25

Shubhada S Kadam

Santosh Madhukar Pokale v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Madhukar Pokale v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Dharmesh @ Nannu Nitinbhai Shah and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dharmesh @ Nannu Nitinbhai Shah and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Naveen Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Amit Shashi Shastri Vs the State of Maharashtra

Akbar Hussain Shafi Hussain Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vivekanand Shridhar Bhandarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.