AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By this common order, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.728/2018 filed by Rajesh Shrimal and S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.729/2018 preferred by
Subhash Shrimal shall be decided together.
In both the petitions, quashing of FIR No.553/2016 dated 1.12.2016, registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur (East) for offences under
Sections 51 and 63 of Copyright Act, 1957, has been prayed for.
A perusal of the FIR reveals that it is alleged by the complainant that petitioners were printing books without having permission of the publisher and
the writer.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Single Judge of this court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in Balveer
Singh Chadha v. State of Rajasthan, 2017(2) WLC (Raj.) (UC) 282 and the judgment rendered by the Single Judge at Jaipur Bench in Deshraj v.
State of Rajasthan, 2017(1) WLC (Raj.) (UC) 715 to contend that offences under the Copyright Act are non-cognizable and police cannot register the
FIR and carry the investigation. Learned counsel has submitted that no permission of the Magistrate under Section 155 Cr.P.C. was obtained and
hence, FIR alongwith chargesheet filed by the police is liable to be quashed.
The order passed by the coordinate Bench in the case of Balveer Singh Chadha (supra) reads as under:-
“This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been preferred for quashing of FIR No. 133/2017 registered at Police Station,
Chanderia, District Chittorgarh and the further proceeding pursuant thereto, qua the petitioner for the offences under sections 51 and 63 of the
Copyright Act, 1957.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is covered by the judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench,
Jaipur in Praveen Kumar & Anr. v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4100/2016 decided on 20.09.2016).
The coordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following order on 20.09.2016:-
This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by petitioners with prayer that F.I.R. No. 120/2005, Police
Station Jurhara, District Bharatpur, for offence under Sections 51, 52- A, 63 and 68-A of the Copyright Act, 1957, filed against them, be quashed.
Learned counsel for petitioners, in support of the case, has relied on a judgment of a coordinate bench of this court in Pintu Dey v. State of Rajasthan
and Another2015 (3) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1291,and argued that the offences, of which charge is levelled against the petitioners, are non-cognizable
punishable with imprisonment of three years. The F.I.R. was registered without order of a Magistrate having power to try such (3 of 3) [CRLMP-
728/2017] case or commit the case for trial and thus there was breach of section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The F.I.R. should
therefore be quashed.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.
This court in Pintu Dey, supra, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajeev Chaudhary v. State - AIR 2001 SC 2369 and that of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in Amarnath Vyas v. State of Andhra Pradesh2007 Cri.L.J. 2025, in similar circumstances, quashed the F.I.R. on the premise
that the same was registered without order of the Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial and thus the provisions of
section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been violated.
In view of the above, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. The F.I.R. No. 120/2005, Police Station Jurhara, District Bharatpur, for offence
under Sections 51, 52-A, 63 and 68-A of the Copyright Act, 1957, is quashed. This also disposes of stay application.
The present misc. petition is allowed in the same terms and the impugned F.I.R No. 133/2017 registered at Police Station, Chanderia, District
Chittorgarh and the further proceeding pursuant thereto, qua the petitioner for the offences under sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 are
quashed and set aside.
Petition allowed in same terms as F.I.R. No. 120/2006, P.S. Jarthana.â€
Shri Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for complainantrespondent No.2, is unable to distinguish the ratio of law laid in the case of Balveer Singh Chadha
(supra).
Consequently, in the light of judgments rendered by two different Benches of this court in Balveer Singh Chadha v. State of Rajasthan (supra) and
Deshraj v. State of Rajasthan (supra), both the petitions are accepted and the impugned FIR alongwith all subsequent proceedings is quashed.
The complainant, if so advised, may take recourse to lawful remedy available to him in accordance with the provisions of law.