Karnataka High Court
Yogaraj vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 August, 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5/2012
BETWEEN:
1. YOGARAJ,
S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
OCC : BUSINESS,
NO.440, OPP. BAKESHWARA CHOWTRI,
NIJALINGAPPA EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE.
2. MANJUNATHA,
S/O BASAVARAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
OCC : BUSINESS,
NEAR HONDADHA CIRCLE,
1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, DAVANAGERE.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K.A.CHANDRASHEKARA, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE OF
EXTENSION POLICE STATION
DAVANAGERE
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI DIWAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)
***
2
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER S.482 OF Cr.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTRATION OF THE CASE IN
CR. NO.215/2011 OF EXTENSION POLICE STATION,
DAVANAGERE, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 63 AND 65 OF COPY RIGHT ACT, 1957 R/W SEC.
420 IPC.
THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioners - accused No.1 & 2 praying this Court to quash the FIR registered in Cr. No.215/2011 by the Extension Police Station, Davanagere for the offence punishable under Section 63 and 65 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 read with Section 420 of IPC.
2. It is the contention of the petitioners that on 12.12.2011 at about 11.15PM on the basis of the mahazar and report sent by the Police Sub-Inspector, a case in Cr. No.215/2011 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 63 and 65 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 read with Section 420 of IPC. It is further urged in the complaint that on credible information that in a Xerox Shop belonging to the 3 petitioners, they are scanning the medical text books, then copied and prepared the books, which resembling as original books and were selling the same to the students, thereby cheating the owners of the books. On the said information, the Police Sub-Inspector and his staff conducted the ride on the said Xerox shop of the petitioners. On verification it revealed that the petitioners after so preparing the books used to sell the same to the students for lesser price. The petitioners were arrested and mahazar was drawn by seizing the materials used for such acts. Thereafter, a case was registered in Cr. No.215/11. The petitioners are challenging the said registration of the case against them before this Court.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel Sri K.A. Chandrashekara for the petitioners that no complaint of any publisher or owner of the books for infringement of the copy right and there is no mentioning of the name of the publisher and printer in the complaint. He submits that in the absence of such material there is no question of infringement of copy 4 right and offence under Section 420 IPC would not be attracted. He further submits the said copies seized were Xerox copies and that they are not printed books. The investigation is not honest and it is tainted with malafides. The registration of case is illegal, improper and opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case and as such same deserves to be quashed.
4. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued by contending that already investigation has been conducted and charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons / petitioners. He further submits that there is prima facie material as against the petitioners - accused and there is no grounds for quashing the proceedings. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
5. I have gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioners as well as the learned HCGP and grounds of the petition.
5
6. Now, that it is an admitted fact that already after investigation the charge sheet has been filed. Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners that even the charge sheet has been filed there is no material as against the accused persons - petitioners. The continuation of the proceedings before the Magistrate Court, in so far as petitioners are concerned, is unnecessary and wastage of time. But, I find that it is not proper at this juncture to say anything on merits of the case.
7. Even if all the contentions, which have been taken by the petitioners on their face value, it is for the Magistrate concerned to consider those contentions on the proper application filed under Section 227 to 248 of Cr.P.C.
8. In that light, I feel the said contentions, which have been taken by the petitioners, could be urged before the Court below. This proposition of law has also been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of UMESH vs STATE OF KERALA reported in (2017) 3 SCC 112, which reads as under: 6
"According to the appellant, since he was not available for trial, trial in his case was separated and the trial Court proceeded as against all the other accused. In CC No.289 of 1996, the first accused was convicted and the rest of the accused persons were acquitted and in CC No.280 of 1996 all the accused persons have been acquitted. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for appellant, the continuance of the proceedings before the Magistrate's Court, as far as the appellant is concerned, is unnecessary harassment and wastage of time.
We find it difficult to appreciate the contention. Even if all contentions taken by the appellant are taken on their face value also, it is for the Magistrate concerned to consider those contentions in an appropriate application filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C.
In that view of the matter, we do not propose to go into all the contention taken by the appellant. The appeals are hence disposed of as follows:
the appellant shall surrender before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chavakkad, where the criminal cases are pending, within four weeks from today. On thus surrendering, on the appellant's furnishing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand), in each case, along with two solvent sureties for the life amount, the appellant shall be released on bail. The appellant will be free to file applications under Section 239 Cr.P.C."
9. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances of the case and preposition of law laid down by 7 the Hon'ble Apex Court, I feel that the Magistrate concerned has to consider the said factual situation and if any application is filed in this behalf, the same may be considered in accordance with law.
10. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE VK