Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
References:- ["NISHANT GARG vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - Uttarakhand"]- ["Mohan Singh VS State of Himachal Pradesh - Crimes"]- ["Rohit Rai VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"]- ["ANAND RATHI vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR - Rajasthan"]- ["ANAND RATHI vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR - Rajasthan"]- ["Gajra Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh"]
In the digital age, where content creation and sharing are ubiquitous, copyright infringement disputes are increasingly common. Creators, businesses, and even casual users often face legal challenges under India's Copyright Act, 1957. A frequent question arises: Whether Section 51(a) of the Copyright Act is compoundable or not? This post delves into the legal nuances, judicial interpretations, and practical implications to provide clarity on this issue.
Understanding compoundability is crucial for resolving disputes amicably without prolonged litigation. Generally, compoundable offences allow parties to settle privately, often with court permission, saving time and resources. Let's explore if Section 51(a) falls into this category.
Section 51(a) deems copyright infringed when any person, without a license or in contravention of license conditions, does anything that is the exclusive right of the copyright owner. As noted, Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed- (a) when any person, without a licence granted by the owner of the copyright... does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the owner of the copyright Maroti s/o. Hanmantrao Kamlapure VS State of Maharashtra, Through Incharge Police Station Officer - 2018 Supreme(Bom) 1226.
This provision is penal in nature, leading to offences under Section 63, which prescribes imprisonment and fines. However, it does not explicitly label the offence as non-compoundable. The Act balances civil remedies (like injunctions and damages) with criminal penalties, reflecting its focus on protecting private rights Soman E. , S/O. Ariyan VS Faisal K. , S/O. Abdulla Haji - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1000.
Section 51(a) is not inherently non-compoundable. It is subject to the same principles of compoundability as other offences under the Act, particularly via Section 147. The Supreme Court has affirmed that every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable under Section 147, overriding restrictions in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) P. MOHANRAJ VS SHAH BROTHERS ISPAT PVT. LTD. - 2021 2 Supreme 528.
Key points include:- No explicit prohibition on compounding in Section 51(a).- Criminal offences under Section 63 are deemed compoundable per Section 147.- Courts recognize these as private rights disputes suited for settlement P. MOHANRAJ VS SHAH BROTHERS ISPAT PVT. LTD. - 2021 2 Supreme 528.- The non-obstante clause in Section 147 trumps CrPC Section 320(9) P. MOHANRAJ VS SHAH BROTHERS ISPAT PVT. LTD. - 2021 2 Supreme 528.
Judicial decisions reinforce this position. In Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663, the Supreme Court held that all offences under the Copyright Act are compoundable by virtue of Section 147: Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable P. MOHANRAJ VS SHAH BROTHERS ISPAT PVT. LTD. - 2021 2 Supreme 528.
The Court emphasized the private nature of these offences, aimed at compensation rather than public punishment. Similarly, in K.M. Ibrahim v. K.P. Mohammed, offences under the Act were deemed compoundable, promoting amicable resolutions N. V. Anilkumar, S/o. Late N. Venugopalan VS Authorized Officer, Chief Manager, State Bank of India - 2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 180.
Other cases illustrate practical application. For instance, courts have quashed FIRs in copyright matters where no prima facie infringement existed, such as sales of duplicate spare parts not invoking Section 51: No prima facie case exists for copyright infringement... FIR is quashed as an abuse of the court's process Mayur Kanaiyalal Shah VS State Of Gujarat - 2023 Supreme(Guj) 1305. This aligns with compoundability by allowing early settlements or dismissals.
In another ruling, proceedings under Sections 63 and 65 alongside IPC Section 420 were quashed when allegations lacked originality, like copied question papers using basic shapes: shapes used by complainant... are circle triangle and rectangle... cannot give rise to copyright Maroti s/o. Hanmantrao Kamlapure VS State of Maharashtra, Through Incharge Police Station Officer - 2018 Supreme(Bom) 1226. Such outcomes highlight courts' discretion in infringement cases, often favoring compounding.
Section 147 explicitly makes all offences under the Act compoundable, reflecting legislative intent to facilitate settlements in private disputes. This overrides CrPC limitations, as confirmed by the Supreme Court P. MOHANRAJ VS SHAH BROTHERS ISPAT PVT. LTD. - 2021 2 Supreme 528.
The scheme distinguishes copyright from purely public welfare offences, treating infringement akin to civil wrongs with criminal teeth. Courts exercise discretion, especially post-compromise, even at advanced stages, as seen in related compounding precedents under new laws like Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS): BNSS does not prescribe a time limit within which an offence can be compounded... even at a post conviction stage Mubasheer, S/o. Abdul Kader VS State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala - 2024 Supreme(Ker) 1485.
Copyright disputes often involve parties preferring settlement over trials. Courts recognize this, quashing proceedings where compromises exist, even for non-compoundable offences under inherent powers (CrPC Section 482 or BNSS equivalent), provided no public interest is harmed GIAN SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB - 2012 7 Supreme 1.
For example:- In land disputes tied to criminal FIRs, courts quashed proceedings post-compromise to prevent abuse of process NANAK SINGH SEHGAL VS STATE OF DELHI - 2002 Supreme(Del) 410.- High Courts invoke inherent powers for quashing even if not strictly compoundable, focusing on justice NARESH KUMAR vs STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER - 2024 Supreme(Online)(HP) 9643.
Recommendations for parties:- Seek compounding under Section 147 early.- Document settlements clearly.- Approach courts for permission, citing precedents.
Legal practitioners should leverage these provisions for efficient resolutions.
While generally compoundable, exceptions may apply:- Public interest cases or repeated violations.- No statutory bar for Section 51(a), but court discretion prevails.- Unlike some IPC offences (e.g., Section 498A), copyright lacks such restrictions RAJEEV VERMA VS STATE OF U. P - 2004 Supreme(All) 463.
In cases like unauthorized constructions or misappropriation, courts assess context before allowing compounding A. R. Banerjee VS R. S. Verma - 2012 Supreme(Del) 960S. Palani Velayudham VS T. G. Lavamoorthy - 2002 Supreme(Mad) 1372. Always consult specifics.
For most copyright infringement cases under Section 51(a), compounding offers a viable path to resolution, backed by statute and judiciary. However, outcomes depend on facts, and parties should seek professional advice.
Disclaimer: This post provides general information based on legal precedents and is not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
#CopyrightLawIndia, #CompoundableOffences, #Section51Copyright
It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.” 9. ... As a result, the FIR No.0258 of 2025 under Sections 51, 63 of Copy Rights Act & Section 349 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, registered at P.S. Kotwali Dehradun, District Dehradun and all the proceedings subsequent thereto, are hereby quashed. 12. ... Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner along with the com....
In Kamal Singh’s case (supra), the question was not related to the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC being compoundable or not but whether the same was cognizable or noncognizable. ... This is an incorrect statement because Section 320 (1) of Cr.P.C. confers a right upon the persons mentioned in the Section to compound the offence. ... It is disquieting that the High Court has overlooked the important legal aspect that the accused have a right#HL_E....
We are, therefore, of the opinion that while taking a call as to whether compromise in such cases should be effected or not, the High Court should go by the nature of injury sustained, the portion of the bodies where the injuries were inflicted (namely, whether injuries are caused at the vital/delicate ... Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. ... While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respec....
They did not ascertain who the copyright holder was or whether the copyright holder had retained any exclusive right or whether licence had been granted as mentioned in Section 51 of the Act. 17. ... right or a performer’s right subsists under the provisions of this Act, the sound recording or a cinematographic film of such programme or performance, if such reproduction, copy or sound recording is made or imported ....
Here comes the issue for consideration as to whether these Guidelines are to be given a go-by when a case is decided/settled in the Lok Adalat? Our answer is that it may not be necessarily so and a proper balance can be struck taking care of both the situations.” ... The Court made it clear that if such offences are compounded by the parties, the trial Court is bound to accept the compounding and the Court need not look into whether a genuine comprom....
) in relation to a programme or performance in which such a broadcast reproduction right or a performer's right subsists under the provisions of this Act, the sound recording or a cinematographic film of such programme or performance, if such reproduction, copy or sound recording is made or imported ... The impugned FIR also does not disclose that if respondent No.2 has acquired any other right conferred under the provisions of the ....
/63 of the Copy Right Act is attested. ... /63 of the Copy Right Act has of the Copy Right Act pending against the petitioner before the Additional After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that the parties have entered into a impugned proceeding under Section 420 and 120 IPC and Section 51/63 p style="position:absolute;white-space:pre;margin:
holding it to be non - compoundable, I do not find any merit in the petition. ... Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg by its order dated 11/03/2014 held that the offence is not compoundable and the application came to be rejected. ... 4. ... Thus, the offence registered against the petitioner under S.354 of the I.P.C.is non - compoundable w.e.f. 31/12/2009 and cannot be compoundable with the leave of the Court under S.320 of the Cr.P.C, and as such, learned Judicial Magistr....
From a perusal of Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, it is evident that in so far as Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code, is concerned, the same is not compoundable. 8. ... Copy, whereof, has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. ... State of Punjab and another reported as (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 466, wherein the Apex Court has categorically laid down that the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases, which are not#HL_....
BNSS ) does not prescribe a time limit within which an offence can be compounded. Therefore, an offence can be compounded even at a post conviction stage, after the culmination of revisional stage. ... Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the compounding was effected at a belated stage and it may not be proper to set aside the conviction and sentence against the petitioner, at this belated stage. ... (ii) Whether the Code of Criminal Procedure or the BNSS prescribe ....
Section 45 of the Act provides for registration of the work in copyright register. Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed- (a) when any person, without a licence granted by the owner of the copyright of the Registrar of Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a licence so granted or of any condition imposed by a competent authority under this Act- (i) does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the owner of the copyright, or (ii) …..... Explanation.- Section 51(a) is deeming provision for infringement of copy ....
Whether the entire unauthorized construction is compoundable or not? 5. There is a dispute between the parties i.e. the appellant and respondent No.1 on the subject to excess construction, beyond the sanction obtained and admittedly, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has yet to compound the excess construction and there is not even finality on the subject:
Whether it was due to inadvertence on part of the law makers, or whether it was the result of pressure from womens groups. ( 17 ) IT is not clear why Section 498-A i. P. C. has not been made compoundable.
A reading of Ex.A13 would clearly reveal the pendency of the criminal complaint and the undertaking by the appellant to withdraw the same. It is pertinent to note that not even a copy of the said complaint was placed in the hands of the Court to find out whether the defendant was accused of compoundable or non-compoundable offence. The circumstances in the instant case are indicative of the fact that had a complaint not been lodged, the defendant would not have executed such an agreement; and that had an agreement as found under Ex.A13, not been executed, it would not have ....
The Full Bench scanned through various precedents and held that what is not permissible under section 302 (9) of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be made permissible under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure. The decision of the Full Bench indeed has a binding force, but the question herein is not as to whether a non-compoundable offence is being made compoundable or not. The petitioners seeks quashing of the first information report to be an abuse of the process of the court and further asserts that it is a fraud on the court as such. This court wa....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
