Dispute Purely Commercial: Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Company For Unauthorizedly Broadcasting Colors Channel Shows
The Petitioners sought quashing of a case registered against them under the Indian Penal Code, Information Technologies Act as well as the Copyright Act.
In light of the fact that the parties in question had reached a settlement and the dispute was purely commercial, the Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a Netherlands-based company accused of unauthorizedly broadcasting shows of Colors Channel in regional languages on various OTT Platforms.
The Petitioners in both the Petitions sought quashing of a case pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate arising out of an FIR registered under Sections 420, 120-B, 468 and 469 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 43, 66 and 66-B of the Information Technologies Act, 2000 as well as Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
The Division Bench of Justice Neela Gokhale and Justice Revati Mohite Dere noted, “The Settlement Agreement records comprehensively the mutual understanding between the parties to avoid prolonged dispute and litigation. It is stated that continuance of the proceedings before the Trial Court will serve no purpose.”
Advocate Tapan Thatte represented the Petitioner while Additional Public Prosecutor V B Konde represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
It was the case of the Prosecution that the Petitioner company- Play Ventures, registered at Curacao, Netherlands and engaged in the business of remote gaming activities and sports-related business, unauthorizedly broadcast certain programs namely ‘Asur’ ‘Crackdown Web series’, ‘Big Boss, a Reality show’, ‘Nagin’ and ‘Choti Sardarni’ and other series of Colors Channel in regional languages on various OTT Platforms. These programs were the paid content of the complainant/First Informant. It was also alleged in the FIR that the owner of the Fair Play Website, i.e., the Petitioner Company herein unauthorizedly broadcasted the Tata IPL, 2023 and the first informant suffered a loss of about Rs.100 Crore.
According to the First Informant, the Petitioners had no valid license or permission to broadcast the aforesaid contents. This led to VIACOM 18 Group (Respondent No.2) lodging the aforesaid FIR. The Investigating Agency investigated the crime and filed its Final Report before the Trial Court
However, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement dated January 24, 2025. VIACOM 18 Group also filed a Consent Affidavit of an Authorized Representative of Respondent No.2-Company in both Petitions. The said Affidavits were duly affirmed before a Notary Public, Mumbai and were tendered in Court.
Reasoning
The Bench enquired with the parties and on questioning, they reiterated their stand in the Consent Affidavits and Settlement Terms. They further stated that in view of the settlement, they had no objection to quashing the FIR culminating in proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
“Considering the nature of the dispute, which is purely commercial in nature, relations between the parties, Settlement Terms filed by the parties and the Consent Affidavits of the Respondent No.2 and having regard to the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court in the matter of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. and Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., there is no impediment in allowing the Petitions”, the Bench held.
Thus, allowing the Petitions, the Bench quashed the FIR in question.
Cause Title: Play Ventures N. V v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:7654-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda, Advocates Tapan Thatte, Nikhil Waje i/b. Dipesh Mehta & Associates, Advocate Siddhi Sawant
Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor V. B. Konde, Advocates Jay Kumar Bhardwaj, Harsh Ramchandani
