IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 595 of 2011() ------------------------------------ (FIR NO.312/2007 OF CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT) ..... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- 1. MR. MAHESH KUMAR, S/O.T.S. RAJA RAMAN, 11/C & D, VINTAGE VIEW APARTMENTS, PANDIT COLONY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MR. RAMANATHAN, S/O.VENKATARAMAN, “NANDANAM”, S.N.R.A 40, SASTHA NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MR. SHYAM KUMAR, S/O.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, T.C.8/1769(4), AYODHYA NAGAR, POONGMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. MR. GEIGO P.PALUNNY, S/O.PALUNNY, PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE, KATTAKAMBAL, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE, SMT.MARIAM MATHAI. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE AREA SALES MANAGER, SET DISCOVERY PVT.LTD., 33/2092 D, 2ND FLOOR, PENIEL MANOR, SREEKALA ROAD, VENNALA PO., KOCHI - 28. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.IYPE JOSEPH R2 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.595 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 24th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.312 of 2007 of Changaramkulam Police Station and C.C. No.327 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ponnani for offences punishable under Sections 63 and 69 read with Sections 37 and 51 of the Copy Right Act, 1957. Case arose on a private complaint filed by the first respondent and forwarded to the police under Sec.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation. Case is that first respondent had right under the Act to broadcast Copa America Football tournament and while so petitioners who are officials of Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd used unauthorised signal from Dubai Sports Channel and telecaste the tournament in Malappuram District through its channel. Petitioners seek to quash proceeding against them on the strength of a settlement reached with respondent No.1. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, respondent No.1 and the learned Public Prosecutor. CRL.M.C. No.595 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. The petition for compounding the offence is signed by counsel for petitioners, respondent No.1 and his counsel. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 confirmed settlement and authenticity of signature of respondent No.1 in the said petition. Since the dispute is purely of a private nature between petitioners and respondent No.1 and that has been settled outside court amicably there is no necessity to continue this proceeding. Hence I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Annexure-AI, final report in Crime No.312 of Chnagaramkulam Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding in C.C.No.327 of 2008 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ponnani against petitioners are quashed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv