Back
2005 Supreme(Pat) 1010
PATNA HIGH COURT
Abhijit Sinha, J.
Shanu Films
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 30896 of 2005 ;
Decided On : NOVEMBER 27, 2005
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's inherent power under Sec. 482 of Cr. P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of the court and secure the ends of justice.
Headnote:
Copyright Act - Film Distribution - Sec. 323, 409, 420/34 of the I.P.C. and 63, 68-A of the Copyright Act - Sec. 482 of Cr. P.C. - Summary: The court discussed the offenses under Sections 323, 409, and 420/34 of the I.P.C. and Sections 63 and 68-A of the Copyright Act. It highlighted the compoundable nature of some offenses and the non-applicability of others. The court also emphasized the inherent power of the court under Sec. 482 of Cr. P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of the court and secure the ends of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute related to the illegal screening of a Hindi motion picture titled 'Patth' and subsequent allegations of assault and threats against the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the offense under Sec. 409 of the I.P.C. was not made out against the petitioners, and the complainant had entered into a compromise with the petitioners. The court also emphasized the inherent power of the court to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the offenses under the I.P.C. and the Copyright Act, as well as the applicability of the inherent power of the court under Sec. 482 of Cr. P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the non-applicability of the offense under Sec. 409 of the I.P.C., the compoundable nature of other offenses, and the compromise reached between the parties. The court also relied on the inherent power of the court under Sec. 482 of Cr. P.C. to quash the criminal proceeding.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Cr. Misc. Application and quashed the criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 645(C)/04, exercising its inherent powers under Sec. 482 of Cr. P.C.
1. Heard Sri Rajan Ghoshrave, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Through this application u/s. 482 of Cr. P.C. the two petitioners herein have questioned the propriety of the order dated 12-4-2004 passed in Complaint Case No. 645(0/2004 (Tr. No. 642/2005) by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 323, 409 and 420/34 of the I.P.C. and 63 and 68-A, Copyright Act against the petitioners. Another prayer has been made for quashing of the entire proceeding presently pending in the Court of Sri Bharat Tiwari, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna.
3. Petitioner No. 2, Hyder Kazmi, is the Proprietor of petitioner No. 1, M/s. Shanu Films, Mumbai, the producer of a Motion Picture in Hindi titled "Patth".
4. The prosecution case as culled out from the petition of complaint can be noticed with relative brevity. The complainant claimed that he was a film distributor and by virtue thereof had been appointed a distributor of a Hindi motion picture titled "Patth" on 5-11-2003 by accused No. 4 (petitioner No. 2 herein). The complainant claimed that being the authorised distributor of the said film had booked the said film for exhibition at Munger on 8-11-2003 through M/s. Konark Cinema, Munger but he suddenly received information that the said film was being screened illegally by means of V.C.D. through M/s. Vijay Picture Palace (accused No. 1) and accordingly complained about the illegal screening to his Association, namely, B.J.M.P.A. and as a result thereof the said Association lodged a complaint before the Officer-in-Charge of the local police station. In course of investigation it transpired that accused No. 1 had purchased the said film from M/s. Cinestor (accused No. 5). The complainant then approached the producer, M/s. Shanu Films and enquired about the screening of the film "Patth" in Bihar by other distributors. The producer of the film in reply faxed a letter on 19-12-03 to the complainant informing him that he had not appointed any one except the complainant as distributor of the said film for the territories of Bihar and Jharkhand and that he had sold his video cable rights only to M/s. Bombino Video Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (accused No. 7).
5. It further transpires that the complainant sent legal notices to the accused Nos. 2, 4 and 5 on 27-12-03 but the replies sent by those accused persons were neither convincing nor satisfactory. It is also alleged that at about 4 p.m. on 12-3-2004, accused No. 2 in the company of four unknown persons came to his office and gave him 2-3 slaps and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence the complaint.
6. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that whereas petitioner No. 1 is a firm engaged in film production, petitioner No. 2 is the partner of the said firm and as such no offence is made out against them even if the allegations are taken to be true and no specific allegations had been made against the petitioners. In this connection it was sought to be pointed out that whereas the complainant was appointed distributor of the said film for Bihar and Jharkhand for screening in the theaters, they had sold their Video-Cable rights to Wide Angle Media which in turn assigned its rights to M/s. Bombino Video Pvt. Ltd. It was also submitted that the petitioners were in no way connected with the illegal screening of the film through Video and in course of investigation by the police none had named the petitioners and nothing incriminating was recovered from their possession. Finally, it was submitted that at the intervention of well- wishers and friends, good sense had prevailed and the parties had entered into a compromise and a joint compromise petition was filed in Court on 13-7-2005. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the impugned order am
