Gujarat High Court
Harjivanbhai Hansrajbhai ... vs Mahendrabhai Mahadevbhai Ambani on 21 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2413/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 05/02/2025
Pronounced On : 21/02/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2413 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
HARJIVANBHAI HANSRAJBHAI PATEL(GOPANI) & ORS.
Versus
MAHENDRABHAI MAHADEVBHAI AMBANI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR D K TRIVEDI(5283) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR ANIL S DAVE(242) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. By way of preferring present petition the petitioners seek to invoke extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing of the FIR being C.R.No.I-39 of 2018 registered with Junagadh 'A' Division Police Station against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 11 of the Designs Act and Sections 63, 64 and 65 of the Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Feb 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 02:53:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2413/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025 undefined Copyright Act, 1957.
2. The brief facts can be summarized as under:
2.1. It is the case of the complainant that he is doing the business of manufacturing and selling different size of trailer, door of trailer and drawbar of trailer under the brand name 'Maruti Trailer' in the name and style of M/s. Tirupati Agro Industries at Morbi-Rajkot Highway, Beside Revapark, Virpur, Taluka Tankara, District Morbi. It is the case of the complainant that he was holding valid license and his designs being No.251288 and 257792 have been patented on 29.01.2013 by the Design & Patent Office, Government of India, Kolkata and certificates bearing Nos. 23921 and 45023 with regard to both the designs have also been issued by the said department. The complainant also issued public notice in four different newspapers on 26.08.2017 so that no manufacturers can copy the said designs. The complainant came to know that those designs have been used by the petitioners and therefore impugned FIR came to be filed against the petitioners on 16.03.2018.
2.2. Having come to know about filing of the FIR, the petitioners immediately approached before this Court by way of preferring present petition. After appreciating the material available on record and on the strength of the arguments canvassed by learned Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Feb 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 02:53:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2413/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025 undefined advocate for the petitioners, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 03.10.2018, granted interim relief in terms of para 6(C) of the petition.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. D. K. Trivedi for the petitioners and learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi for respondent No.2 - State.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi submits that petitioners are the partners of proprietorship concern viz. 'Prince Steel and Maruti Traders' of Junagadh and indulge in the business of of manufacturing and selling the parts of tractor and trailer. Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi further submits that specific role of each of the accused has not been described in the body of the FIR and general and vague allegations were levelled against the petitioners by the complainant. He further submits that nobody can claim any right over the designs which are already in existence in the market and used by number of manufacturers since last many years. The designs for which the FIR in question is filed by the complainant were in existence and used by number of manufacturers since last many years before the registration of the FIR. He further submits that the designs in question are very old and common to general public and there is nothing creative, unique or specific in the said designs. He further submits that the designs in question are used by various Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Feb 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 02:53:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2413/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025 undefined manufacturers of trolley who used these designs for manufacturing tractor trolley and therefore no one can claim any exclusive right over these designs.
Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi has submitted that in fact just to substantiate his claim, he has produced the copy of R.C.Book of one particular vehicle along with photographs showing number plate as well as design in question being used to manufacture the said trolley. He submits that admittedly, the date mentioned in the R. C. Book of the said vehicle is 18.06.2010 and therefore the designs in question are being used since the year 2010 and prior thereto also. He, therefore, submits that nobody can claim exclusive right over the said designs. He further submits that as per the case of the complainant, the designs in question were registered before the competent authority on 29.01.2013 and therefore much before the date of registration of the designs with the competent authority, the said designs were at all in existence in the market and used by number of manufacturers. In support of the said contention, learned advocate for the petitioners has produced affidavit of number of manufacturers and submitted that those manufacturers have stated on oath that they are indulging in the business of manufacturing of trolley since last many years and there is nothing new in the said designs. He, therefore, submits that when the designs were used by number of persons since last many years, no one can get exclusive right over Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Feb 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 02:53:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2413/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025 undefined the designs merely on the basis of holding design registration certificate and he cannot prevent anyone from using those designs which are already there in existence prior to the date of issuance of design registration certificate by the competent authority.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi has referred Section 15(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and submits that copyright shall not subsist under the Act in any design which is registered under the Designs Act, 2000. Therefore, no offence could be said to have been made out under the Copyright Act as no copyright subsists. He further submits that as per Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, copyright in any design, which is capable of being registered under the Design Act, 2000, but which has not been so registered, shall cease as soon as any article to which the design has been applied has been reproduced more than fifty times by an industrial process by the owner of the copyright, or, with his licence, by any other person. He submits that as per the case of the complainant, the designs in question were registered on 29.01.2013 and FIR is filed after lapse of 5 years i.e. in the year 2018. Therefore, the complainant might have used the said design more than fifty times and his right is already exhausted so far as issue of copyright is concerned and therefore no offence under Sections 63, 64 and 65 of the Copyright Act could be said to have been made out against the petitioners.
Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Feb 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 02:53:22 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2413/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025 undefined
6. Learned Advocate Mr. Trivedi further submits that as per the relevant provision of the Designs Act, the design which is already in use and not created for the first time, cannot be registered and the same is required to be cancelled. He further submits that in fact civil litigation is filed by the complainant before the competent Court and said suit is pending. Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi further submits that he has already produced the copy of the photographs of the design of the trolley and if Hon'ble Court would make cursory glance upon the said photographs, in that event, it would have been found out that in almost all trolleys the same design are made. Therefore, nothing new is created in the said design. On the contrary, almost in all trolleys same kind of designs are found out. Therefore, considering the above stated factual aspects, the FIR in question may be quashed. Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi has put reliance upon the judgment dated 06.10.2023 rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Criminal Application No.3296 of 2014 and submitted that this Court may exercise its inherent powers in favour of the petitioners by quashing the FIR in question.
7. Learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi appearing for the respondent No.2 - State has objected present application with vehemence and submitted that immediately after the registration of the FIR, Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Feb 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 02:53:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2413/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025 undefined petitioners approached before this Court and at that relevant point of time, further proceedings of the FIR in question have been stayed and therefore the investigation could not reach to its logical end and charge-sheet is not filed. He further submits that if this Hon'ble Court would make cursory glance upon the averments of the FIR, in that event, it would be found out that prima facie involvement of the accused persons in commission of crime is spelt out. He, therefore, submits that present petition may not be entertained.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it is found out from the record that respondent No.1 - original complainant has lodged one FIR against the petitioners, inter alia, alleging that the petitioners have used the designs of the complainant and thereby they have committed the offence punishable under the provisions of the Designs Act and the Copyright Act.
9. Section 15 of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides thus:
"15. Special provision regarding copyright in designs registered or capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 2000.- (1) Copyright shall not subsist under this Act in any design which is registered under the Designs Act, 2000.Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Feb 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 02:53:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2413/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025 undefined (2) Copyright in any design, which is capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 2000, but which has not been so registered, shall cease as soon as any article to which the design has been applied has been reproduced more than fifty times by an industrial process by the owner of the copyright, or, with his licence, by any other person."
10. It is found out from the record that the designs in question were used by the common public much before its registration, which is evident from the photographs and R.C. book of one vehicle which is registered in the year 2010. It is found out from the record that the designs in question were registered on 29.01.2013. The FIR is filed after lapse of 5 years i.e. in the year 2018. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed the offence punishable under Sections 63, 64 and 65 of the Copyright Act and under the provisions of the Designs Act.
11. Moreover, as per the relevant provision of the Designs Act, the design which is already in existence and in use and not created for the first time, cannot be registered and if so then the same is required to be cancelled. It is contended by learned advocate for the petitioners that in fact civil litigation is filed by the complainant before the competent Court for the subject matter, which is pending for adjudication.
Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Feb 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 02:53:22 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2413/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025 undefined
12. Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi for the petitioners has submitted that in similar set of facts, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the FIR in question and the case of the present petitioners is squarely covered by the said decision. The coordinate Bench of this Court, vide its judgment dated 06.10.2023, rendered in the case of Mayur Kanaiyalal Shah v. State of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application No.3296 of 2014, observed and held as under:
"9. The Court in the case of Binita Rahul Shah Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2009(3) GLR 2688, has observed thus:-
"19. Section 63 of the Copyright Act states that any person who knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of the Copyright in a work shall be punishable with infringement etc. The definition of the term infringing copy as appearing in section 2(m) of the Copyright Act reads as under :
2(m) 'infringing copy' means, -
(i) in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, a reproduction thereof otherwise than in the form of a cinematographic film;
(ii) in relation to cinematographic film, a copy of the film made on any medium by any means;
(iii) in relation to asound recording, any other recording embodying the same sound recording, made by any means;
(iv) in relation to a programme or performance in which such a broadcast reproduction right or a performer's right Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Feb 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 02:53:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2413/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025 undefined subsists under the provisions of this Act, the sound recording or a cinematographic film of such programme or performance, if such reproduction, copy or sound recording is made or imported in contravention of the provisions of this Act;
20. A plain reading makes it clear that the principal work has to be either a literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work; or should be a cinematographic film; or a sound recording, or a programme or performance in which a broadcast reproduction right or a performer's right subsists under the provisions of Copyright Act. In the facts of the present case, admittedly the provisions cannot be attracted, much less any ingredient thereof is shown to have been satisfied even prima facie. The Court is not concerned in these proceedings whether any violation has occurred under the Provisions of Designs Act, because that is not even the case of the complainant. The settled legal position cannot be understood to mean laying down a proposition of law that the Court in these proceedings is precluded from even a plain reading of the relevant provisions to prima facie see whether any offence can be said to have been committed or not."
The ratio laid down by this Court in the above referred case squarely applies in the present case.
10. The Court has also considered the judgment of the this Court in Criminal Misc. Application (FOR Quashing & Set Aside FIR/Order) No. 8903 of 2013 dated 02.12.2023 after considering the similar facts and circumstances of the case.
11. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned FIR, prima facie, no case is made out Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Feb 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 02:53:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2413/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025 undefined against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 read with Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and in view of the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Binita Rahul Shah (supra), this Court is of the opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of process of law and Court. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the present application is hereby allowed.
13. The impugned FIR culminated into Criminal Register No.25 of 2014 qua petitioner as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed."
13. The scope and ambit of inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, now stands well defined by series of judicial pronouncements. Undoubtedly, this Court has inherent powers to do real and substantial justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. At the same time, the Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent powers vested in the Court should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. However, this Court can exercise its inherent power or extra-ordinary power if the Court Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Feb 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 02:53:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2413/2018 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2025 undefined comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court, or the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. Thus, I am of the considered view that the allegations in the first information report if taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not constitute the offence alleged. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the chances of an ultimate conviction after full-fledged trial are bleak and continuation of criminal prosecution against the petitioners accused is merely an empty formality and wastage of prestigious time of the Court.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Accordingly, the FIR being C.R.No.I-39 of 2018 registered with Junagadh 'A' Division Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 11 of the Designs Act and Sections 63, 64 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and consequential proceedings, if any, arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute (DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) LAVKUMAR J JANI Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Feb 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 02:53:22 IST 2025