Naushad v. State of Kerala and Luxotica Group

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2013/31ST JYAISHTA 1935** **Crl.MC.No. 1076 of 2013 () ---------------------------** ## **CRIME NO. 2820/2012 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM** **-----------** **PETITIONER/PETITIOENR:** **-----------------------** **NAUSHAD** **S/O.ABDUL KHADER, AGED 35,PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE, NETTUR MARADU VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DIST, KERALA-682506** **BY ADV. SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS** **RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED:** **--------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA** **REP BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA HIGH COURT OF KERALA-KOCHI-31** **2. LUXOTICA GROUP** **S P A , VIA CANTU 2 MILAN 20123 THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HARVINDER SINGH AGED 34 C/O.RAY BAN SUN OPTICS INDIA LIMITED HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT 7TH FLOOR, TOWER B DLF BUILDING NO 9, DLF CYBER CITY GURGAON-122001** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.SHOBITH AGRAWAL R2 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN ALEX** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **VK** **Crl.MC.No. 1076 of 2013 () ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **--------** **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE** **---------------------** **ANNEXURE A1. CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR DATED 4.10.10.** **ANNEXURE A2. CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 20.10.10.** **ANNEXURE A3. COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FILED BEFORE THE MEDIATION CENTRE, DELHI HIGH COURT.** **ANNEXURE A4. AFFIDAVIT FILED BY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE : NIL** **---------------------** **/ TRUYE COPY /** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **VK** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **----------------------------------------** ## **Crl.M.C.No. 1076 of 2013** ## **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 21[st] day of June, 2013 ## **O R D E R** The above petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') at the instance of the petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.218 of 2010 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, which is a case instituted upon the police report in Crime No.2820 of 2010 of the Ernakulam Central Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 63 of the Copy Right Act,1957 and Section 420 of the I.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure A2 final report filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam in C.C.No.218 of 2010, as the matter is settled out of court. 2. The allegation in the above case is that the petitioner manufactured cooling glasses and stocked the same showing them as original Ray Ban cooling glasses and thereby cheated the company, which is manufacturing the original Ray Ban glasses, with fraudulent intention to get pecuniary advantage and with the same intention, forged seal is Crl.M.C.No.1076 of 2013 :-2-: implanted in the glass made by him and thus he stocked 15 cooling glasses in his institution and thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 63 of the Copy Right Act,1957 and 420 I.P.C. Now, the case of the petitioner is that the matter is settled out of court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the second respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the above case, the matter is settled amicably between the parties to the dispute which is the subject matter of the above case. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings in the above case is abuse of process of law and proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the second respondent, who is the de facto complainant, on the basis of specific instruction received from the respondent, submitted that the above respondent does not intend to proceed any further against the petitioner and he has no grievance against them. 6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the Crl.M.C.No.1076 of 2013 **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** respective counsel. Annexure A4 affidavit is filed by the de facto complainant. I have verified the documents and materials produced along with the above petition. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and especially in the light of the settlement arrived between the parties to the dispute, the learned Public Prosecutor has also no objection in allowing the above petition. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the offences involved in the above case are only Section 63 of the Copy Right Act,1957 and 420 I.P.C. which are more or less personal in nature and no public interest is involved. It is pertinent to note that though such offences are involved, the real parties to the dispute approached this Court after having amicably settled the matter. From the submission made by the counsel for the second respondent, it appears to me that the de facto complainant has no further grievance against the petitioner/accused in the light of the settlement arrived by them. In this juncture, it is relevant to note the decision of the Honourable Apex Court v. reported in **Gian Singh State of Punjab** [2012(4) KLT 108(SC)], in Crl.M.C.No.1076 of 2013 :-4-: ## which case, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- _“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under S.320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz;(i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed.._ ## It is further held as follows:- “...... _... But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,mercandile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because_ Crl.M.C.No.1076 of 2013 :-5-: _of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim........”_ According to me, in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and particularly in view of the settlement arrived in the present case, the dictum laid in the above decision is applicable in the present case. Thus, I am of the view that as the parties to the dispute settled the issues amicably, it is the duty of this Court to promote and encourage such settlement, instead of compelling the parties to go on with the dispute. It is pertinent to note that since the matter is settled out of court, in the event of proceeding with the trial, there would not have any fruitful prosecution resulting the conviction of the accused, rather the net result would be sheer waste of judicial time and abuse of process of the court and proceedings. Thus, according to me, following the decisions cited supra, this Criminal M.C. can be allowed granting the relief as sought for. Crl.M.C.No.1076 of 2013 **==> picture [21 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed, quashing Annexure -A2 final report filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam in C.C.No.218 of 2010. **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** MBS/ Crl.M.C.No.1076 of 2013 :-7-: