1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 321 OF 2009 1 Hathway MCN Pvt. Ltd. Co., (Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, Through its directors having its registered office at 310 and 311, 2 nd floor, Akshay Deep Plaza Jalna Road, Aurangabad.) 2 Virendrasingh s/o Uttamsingh Pawar age 35 years, occ. Director of petitioner no. 1. 3 Nitin s/o Shrikrishna Bagwe age 46 years, occ. Director of petitioner no. 1. 4 Devidas s/o Santaram Dahale age 35 years, occ. Deputy General Manager of petitioner no. 1. All respondent nos. 2 to 4 r/o 310 and 311, 2 nd floor Akshay deep Plaza, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. .. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1 The State of Maharashtra 2 Novex communications Pvt.Ltd. B-301, Remizcourt, 9 Shah Industrial Estate Off. At Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai 400 058. Through its authrised representative 2 Upendra s/o Namdeo Jalgaonkar age 27 years,occ.service r/o DT25, D-3, Saptadip Society Akurti Mhada colony Road no. 2, Kandiwali (East) Mumbai 400 101. .. RESPONDENTS Shri Sachin S. Panale, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri V.H. Dighe, APP for the State. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 1 st July, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Herd Shri Sachin Panale, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri V.H. Dighe, learned APP for the State. None appears for respondent no. 2 though served. 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3 Petition is presented seeking quashment of the criminal proceeding initiated by respondent no. 2 on presentation of complaint before the 6 th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad which came to be registered as RCC no. 292/2008. The allegations contained in the complaint are in respect of infringement of copy rights. It is alleged that the petitioner company has violated the provisions of section 63 r/w section 69 of the Copy Rights Act, 1957 so also sections 7, 16 and 17 of the Cable Television Network Act. On receipt of the complaint, the learned Magistrate directed police to 3 investigate the matter and submit report of investigation as provided under section 156(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During the course of investigation, it transpires that statement of the informant was recorded by police. The informant on his own has stated before the police that the complaint presented by him before the Magistrate was because of certain mis-understading. It is specifically stated by the informant that he has no grievance in respect of violation of provisions of Copy Right Act or in respect of infringement of provisions of Cable Television Network Act. The informant has requested the police official to dispose of the complaint and submit the report to the court accordingly. 4 This court in view of order passed on 13-4-2009 directed issuance of notice to the parties. Respondent no. 2 even after receipt of notice has not caused appearance. Shri Dighe, learned APP has on instructions submitted that the police official has investigated the matter and it has been found that the complainant does not want to prosecute the complaint. He has specifically stated in his statement recorded on 19-3-2008 that he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner. On instructions, learned APP Shri Dighe submits that there is no impediment in directing quashment of the criminal proceeding in view of the statement of the complainant recorded by police official on 19-3-2008. In this view of the matter, writ petition deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses ‘B’ and ‘C’. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/cwp321.09.odt