VINOD RAI A.DOSHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners seek quashing of the entire proceeding including the order dated 1.11.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in complaint case No. 899(C) of 2002, Trial No. 1609 of 2002 by which he has taken cognizance under Sections 406, 410 and 120B I.P.C.

(2.) On 10.8.2004 notices were issued to the opposite party No. 2 and in the meanwhile further proceeding in the court below was stayed. Thereafter on 7.12.2006 the application was admitted for hearing. Today even though the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is present none appears on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.

(3.) The case of the complainant, shorn of unnecessary details, is that allegedly, the Petitioners who are Proprietors of V.R. Pictures, Mumbai came to the complainant's office and represented that they are producing a film which was sure to be a super hit and thereby induced and instigated him to acquire the distribution rights, for the territory of Bihar and Jharkhand to which he allegedly agreed. On 15.3.2002 an agreement of distributorship was signed between the parties by which the distributorship of the film was given to the complainant, but, all other rights pertaining to T.V., Cable, etc., vested with the accused persons, and they agreed not to exploit their rights for a period of one year from the date of first theatrical release anywhere in India. Through a power of attorney dated 18.3.02 conferred upon the complainant the accused persons allegedly also agreed that the video rights for cable, T.V. etc., would not be given for commercial distribution/exploitation in territories of India, Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh to any other party and would vest with the producer and would not be parted with till such time as it is permitted by the producers association and the BMPA. Thereafter, the complainant is said to have been shown various rushes of the film including a song, which he particularly appreciated. The song reportedly also created a craze among the public. As per the agreement the complainant gave Rs. 5,00,000 (Five Lakhs) to the accused persons two weeks in advance before the date of delivery of total prints and an additional Rs. 21,04,752.31 for 25 prints and publicity materials was also paid.