IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2450 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.68/2009 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM ....................................................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED -------------------------------------- FR.JAMES CHALIL, S/O. VARKEY CHALIL, RESIDING AT SH MONASTRY, THEVARA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PETER, S/O. VARGHES, PARATHARA HOUSE, KOTTAMURI DESAM, MELOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DIST. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.BYJU KURIAKOSE FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.VINOD. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No.2450 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 31st day of July,2009 ORDER Petitioner is the accused in C.C.68/2009 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The allegation against the petitioner is that he committed an offence under section 63 of Copyright Act by taking photocopy of the book 'Italian Padana Sahai' authored by the first respondent and sold the same without the knowledge or concurrence of first respondent. 2. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that there was a settlement of the dispute with the first respondent and though offence is not compoundable, in view of the settlement of all the disputes between first respondent and petitioner it is not in the interest of justice to proceed with the case. 3. First respondent appeared through a counsel and filed Annexure C affidavit stating that the matter has been settled and he is not inclined to proceed with the case and has no objection for quashing the proceedings. Crl.M.C.2450/2009 2 4.. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 5. An offence under the Copyright Act is not compoundable. But the question is when the matter has been settled between the accused and the complainant and there is no likelihood of a conviction consequent to the settlement, is it necessary to proceed with the case. As held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008(3) KLT 19 and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008(4) KLT 17) it is not in the interest of justice to proceed with the case when the offence is personal in nature against the first respondent and there was an amicable settlement of the dispute with the first respondent. In such circumstance, petition is allowed. C.C.68/2009 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006