IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2906 OF 2007() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/06/2007 IN CRMP. 4372 /2005 IN CC.127/2007 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 5 -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.MALAYALAM COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED, 4/2382, CHANDRAGIRI, VIKRAMAPURAM HILLS, KURAVANKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695003, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. M/S.KAIRALI TELEVISION, A UNIT OF M/S.MALAYALAM COMMUNICATIONS LTD., 4/2382, CHANDRAGIRI, VIKRAMAPURAM HILLS, KURAVANKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN- 695003, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. JOHN BRITTAS, AGED 45 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.MALAYALAM COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED, 4/2382, CHANDRAGIRI, VIKRAMAPURAM HILLS, KURAVANKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN- 695003. 4. P.I.MOHAMMEDKUTTY @ MAMMOOTTY, AGED 57 YEARS, CHAIRMAN, M/S.MALAYALAM COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED, 4/2382, CHANDRAGIRI, VIKRAMAPURAM HILLS, KURAVANKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN- 695003. 5. SHIBU CHAKRAVARTHY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PRODUCTION EXECUTIVE, M/S.MALAYALAM COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED, 4/2382, CHANDRAGIRI, VIKRAMAPURAM HILLS, KURAVANKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN- 695003. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.PRASUN.S RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. P.K.SANIL KUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O LATE SAMIKUTTY, PROPRIETOR, M/S.S.MOVIES, PRESENTLY HAVING OFFICE AT NO.27, STADIUM COMPLEX, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI FOR R.1 SMT.C.G.PREETHA FOR R.1 SMT.P.RANI DIOTHIMA FOR R.1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2906 of 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of August, 2009 O R D E R -------------- This revision is at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C. No.127 of 200 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode. Case arose on a private complaint preferred by respondent No.1 against petitioners/accused 1 to 5 and accused Nos.6 to 8. Allegation is that in pursuance to the conspiracy between petitioners and accused Nos.6 to 8, they, in furtherance of their common intention to telecast the film “Malabaril Ninnoru Manimaran” through petitioner No.2 and obtain illegal gain allegedly fabricated an agreement for selling the rights and contents of the same, committed criminal breach of trust and by misusing the negative and positive of the said film committed offences as alleged. Learned magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 51, 62 and 63 of the Copy Rights Act against petitioners and accused Nos.6 to 8. Cognizance to the extent it concerned the petitioners is under challenge in this revision. 2. Petitioners and respondent No.1 have filed Crl.M.A. No.8231 of 2009 reporting that the matter has been settled between CRL. R.P. No.2906 of 2007 -: 2 :- them out of court. It is stated in paragraph 5 of the joint statement that matter is compromised with the petitioners as well as the remaining accused (accused Nos.6 to 8) who are not parties to this proceeding. Respondent No.1 has no grievance against any of the accused in C.C. No.127 of 2007. It is therefore requested that invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) entire proceeding in C.C No.127 of 2007 may be quashed to secure the ends of justice. 3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and respondent No.1. They asserted that the entire matter has been settled between all the accused including petitioners and respondent No.1. Offences for which cognizance has been taken by the learned magistrate and are not compoundable. But in this case parties have settled the dispute. This is a private dispute between the parties. It has been amicably settled between them. In Nikhil Merchant v. State of U.P. (2008 (3) KHC 955) it has been held that technicalities should not stand in the way of the court interfering with any such private dispute where parties have settled their disputes. In this case in the light of the compromise reached between the parties there is no possibility of evidence being let in to support the CRL. R.P. No.2906 of 2007 -: 3 :- allegations against petitioners and accused Nos.6 to 8. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to invoke the power under Sec.482 of the Code. There is no reason why the benefit of this order should not be given to accused Nos.6 to 8 though they are not parties in this revision in the light of the statement in paragraph 5 of the joint statement that entire dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.1 including accused Nos.6 to 8 has been settled amicably. 4. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.8132 of 2009 is allowed. Entire proceeding in C.C.No.127 of 2007 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode is quashed. I make it clear that the benefit of this order will also go to accused Nos.6 to 8. Revision petition is disposed of as above. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv