Gujarat High Court
Damjibhai Hansrajbhai Gamdha vs State Of Gujarat on 20 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14689/2016 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 14689 of 2016
==========================================================
DAMJIBHAI HANSRAJBHAI GAMDHA & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 20/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.II - 115 of 2016 registered with Panchkoshi "B" Division Police Station, Jamnagar for the offences punishable under Sections 63, 65 and 69 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
2.1. The petitioners are running partnership firm in the name of Radekrishna Products and doing business of producing, processing, selling and marketing different type of edible lime for betel nut pan and pan masala at Jamnagar. The petitioners are Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:29:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14689/2016 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined selling their product under different brand names i.e. BABU, NEW PATEL, SHRI BHOLE BAPA. The petitioners are using trademark "BABU" since 2006 and upon request of petitioners trademark "BABU CHUNA" came to be assigned in favour of the petitioners. Respondent no.2 on 30.07.2012 instituted Civil Suit against the petitioners being Civil Suit No.4 of 2012 for infringement and against use of BABU artistic label. The petitioners on being served with summons appeared and also filed application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC raising manifold contention. As on date, the suit is pending. Thereafter, petitioners gathered information that respondent no.2 is using trademark "BABU" and therefore, petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No.7 of 2012 as respondent no.2 committed act of infringement of registered trademark. Respondent no.2 appeared in the said suit and while the two suits were pending, respondent no.2 not being successful in getting any injunction in his favour, filed complaint before Panchkoshi "B" Division Police Station, Jamnagar being II-C.R.No.141 of 2012 under the provisions of Copy Right Act. That filing of charge-sheet culminated into registration of Criminal Case No.1085 of 2013.
2.2. That the petitioners thereafter filed a petition before this Hon'ble Court being Criminal Misc. Application no. 19369/2013, whereby the petitioners have challenged the complaint being II-
CR No. 141/2012 filed by the respondent no.2 against the petitioners before Panchkoshi "B" Division Police Station, Jamnagar as well as filing of the charge-sheet and the proceedings of Criminal Case no. 1085/2013 pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar. The Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:29:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14689/2016 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined petitioners state that this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 04.12.2013, was pleased to issue notice to the respondents. That, though the respondent no.2 was served, did not appear. That, as on date, the above-referred petition being Criminal Misc. Application no. no. 19369/2013 is pending consideration before this Hon'ble Court.
2.3. That the respondent no.2, on 08.10.2013, has filed a complaint before Rajkot Taluka Police Station being II-CR No. 89/2013 against one Shri Umeshbhai Ravjibhai Nasit and Shri Maheshbhai Dhanjibhai Ramani under the provisions of Section 63, 65 and 69 of the Copyright Act, inter-alla, alleging that the said accused named therein are infringing his copyrighted article which has received protection under registration no. 100015/2013. The petitioners state that the said accused namely Shri Umeshbhai Ravjibhai Nasit and Shri Maheshbhai Dhanjibhai Ramani has preferred a quashing petition before this Hon'ble Court being Criminal Misc. Application no. 17959/2013. That, this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 09.12.2013 has been pleased to Issue Rule to the respondent no.2.
2.4. The petitioners state that the above-referred petition being Criminal Misc. Application no. 17959/2013 is pending consideration before this Hon'ble Court. Though the first complaint filed by the respondent no.2 against the petitioners being II-CR No. 141/2012 is pending before Panchkoshi "B" Division Police Station, Jamnagar, the respondent no.2 again on 09.06.2016 has filed another complaint against the petitioners being II-CR No. 115/2016 under the provisions of Sections 63, 65 and 69 of Copyright Act alleging that the petitioners are Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:29:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14689/2016 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined infringing his copyrighted article registered under registration no. 100015/2013. Hence, present petition.
3. In aforesaid factual background, learned advocate Mr.Jasnai for the petitioners would submit that complainant has filed civil and criminal litigation against the petitioners multiple times, thereafter made compromise and again filed similar criminal cases against the petitioners which indicates that complainant uses criminal proceedings conveniently. He would submit that petitioners and complainant both are involved in the same business of selling chewing lime (chuna). It is submitted that FIRs are lodged to run down business of the petitioner, therefore, FIR is mala fide. It is further submitted that first FIR, apart from civil litigation, which are compromised between the parties, yet another FIR being C.R.No.289 of 2013 was registered by the complainant before the Rajkot Taluka Police Station for identical facts for identical offence under Copyright Act, 1952. Learned advocate Mr.Jasani would submit that Criminal Misc. Application No.17959 of 2013 was filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash said FIR and in this proceedings, complainant remained present and submitted that compromise has been arrived between the parties. Subsequently, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court quashed the FIR on compromise. It is submitted that subsequent to filing of this FIR, private complaint was filed before learned CJM, Jamnagar, wherein, learned CJM, Jamnagar did not find any material to take cognizance as complaint was similar to previous FIR, learned CJM, Jamnagar therefore, refused to issue process by dropping proceedings. Learned advocate Mr.Jasani submitted that yet another FIR i.e. impugned FIR was filed by the complainant, it is nothing but Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:29:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14689/2016 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined abuse of process of law and complainant who is repeatedly filing civil and criminal proceedings against the petitioners, has filed impugned FIR. It is submitted that therefore, impugned FIR being successive in nature should be quashed by allowing present petition.
4. Though, private respondent is served, he did not remain present.
5. Learned APP for respondent State has hotly contested the petition. It is submitted that there is no cavil that complainant is artistic work permitted carry business of chewing lime bags registered under Copyright Act and has been imitated by present petitioners. It is submitted that since petitioners after enter into compromise continue to breach registered copyright of the complainant, it is continuous cause of action, it would give fresh reason to file fresh litigation. It is submitted that in the present case, the petitioners did not question that artistic work on the bag of chewing lime is not registered under the Copyright Act and therefore, that artistic work if violated giving continuous cause of action, the complainant is certainly entitled to maintain criminal case against the petitioner. It is submitted that after filing civil litigation, entering into compromise in criminal maters where settlement was recorded, it will not come in the way of complainant to file another complainant, since there is breach giving fresh cause of action for every violation.
5.1. Upon above submissions, it is submitted to dismiss the petition.
Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:29:19 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14689/2016 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined
6. Apt to note that impugned FIR is registered on 09.06.2016 for the offence under sections 63, 65 and 69 of the Copyright Act with contention that complainant is manufacturing 4 gms of chewing lime bag and having artistic work on both sides with black lining and name of Babu Parcel written in red, black color in Gujarati, Hindi and English language registered under Copyright Act having Registration No.100015 of 2013. The petitioners are continuously breaching said artistic work. Some previous litigation took place between both the parities. However, previous litigation ended in settlement. As per FIR, in last two years prior to filing of FIR, complainant has suffered down fall in sale of its business, then on inquiry found that some one has imitated artistic work of the complainant and petitioners are also using label of Babu Chuna parcel, which he is producing and therefore, impugned FIR was filed.
7. It is not in dispute that complainant is registered owner of artistic work which he use on 4 gm bag of chewing lime. It is not in dispute that said copyright work has been violated by the petitioners and committed piracy thereof by deceiving ultimate consumer. It is undeniable that complainant holds exclusive right to use label of artistic work which he has obtained registered under the Copyright Act. Section 51 of the Copyright defines when copyright infringed, it reads as under :-
"51. When copyright infringed.--
Copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed--
(a)when any person, without a licence granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar of Copyrights under Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:29:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14689/2016 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a licence so granted or of any condition imposed by a competent authority under this Act--
(i)does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the owner of the copyright, or
(ii)permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that such communication to the public would be an infringement of copyright; or
(b)when any person--
(i)makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets for hire, or by way of trade displays or offers for sale or hire, or
(ii)distributes either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright, or
(iii)by way of trade exhibits in public, or
(iv)imports into India,any infringing copies of the work:
8. Section 52 of the Copyright Act reads as under :-
"52. Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright.--
(1)The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely:
(a)a fair dealing with any work, not being a computer programme, for the purposes of--
(i)private or personal use, including research;
(ii)criticism or review, whether of that work or of any other work;
(iii)the reporting of current events and current affairs, including the reporting of a lecture delivered in public.
Explanation.--The storing of any work in any electronic medium for the purposes mentioned in this clause, including the incidental storage of any computer programme which is not itself an infringing copy for the said purposes, shall not constitute infringement of Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:29:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14689/2016 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined copyright.
(aa)the making of copies or adaptation of a computer programme by the lawful possessor of a copy of such computer programme from such copy--
(i)in order to utilise the computer programme for the purpose for which it was supplied; or
(ii)to make back-up copies purely as a temporary protection against loss, destruction or damage in order only to utilise the computer programme for the purpose for which it was supplied;
(ab)the doing of any act necessary to obtain information essential for operating inter-operability of an independently created computer programme with other programmes by a lawful possessor of a computer programme provided that such information is not otherwise readily available; (ac)the observation, study or test of functioning of the computer programme in order to determine the ideas and principles which underline any elements of the programme while performing such acts necessary for the functions for which the computer programme was supplied; (ad)the making of copies or adaption of the computer programme from a personally legally obtained copy for non-commercial personal use;
(b)the transient or incidental storage of a work or performance purely in the technical process of electronic transmission or communication to the public;
(c)transient or incidental storage of a work or performance for the purpose of providing electronic links, access or integration, where such links, access or integration has not been expressly prohibited by the right holder, unless the person responsible is aware or has reasonable grounds for believing that such storage is of an infringing copy:Provided that if the person responsible for the storage of the copy has received a written complaint from the owner of copyright in the work, complaining that such transient or incidental storage is an infringement, such person responsible for the storage shall refrain from facilitating such access for a period of twenty-one days or till he receives an order from the competent court refraining from facilitating access and in case no such Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:29:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14689/2016 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined order is received before the expiry of such period of twenty- one days, he may continue to provide the facility of such access;
(d)the reproduction of any work for the purpose of a judicial proceeding or for the purpose of a report of a judicial proceeding;
(e)the reproduction or publication of any work prepared by the Secretariat of a Legislature or, where the Legislature consists of two Houses, by the Secretariat of either House of the Legislature, exclusively for the use of the members of that Legislature;
(f)the reproduction of any work in a certified copy made or supplied in accordance with any law for the time being in force;
(g)the reading or recitation in public of reasonable extracts from a published literacy or dramatic work;
(h)the publication in a collection, mainly composed of non- copyright matter, bona fide intended for instructional use, and so described in the title and in any advertisement issued by or on behalf of the publisher, of short passages from published literary or dramatic works, not themselves published for such use in which copyright subsists:Provided that not more than two such passages from works by the same author are published by the same publisher during any period of five years.
Explanation.--In the case of a work of joint authorship, references in this clause to passages from works shall include references to passages from works by any one or more of the authors of those passages or by any one or more of those authors in collaboration with any other person;(i)the reproduction of any work--(i)by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction; or(ii)as part of the questions to be answered in an examination; or(iii)in answers to such questions;
(j)the performance, in the course of the activities of an educational institution, of a literary, dramatic or musical work by the staff and students of the institution, or of a Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:29:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14689/2016 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined cinematograph film or a sound recording if the audience is limited to such staff and students, the parents and guardians of the students and persons connected with the activities of the institution or the communication to such an audience of a cinematograph film or sound recording;
(k)the causing of a recording to be heard in public by utilising it,--(i)in an enclosed room or hall meant for the common use of residents in any residential premises (not being a hotel or similar commercial establishment) as part of the amenities provided exclusively or mainly for residents therein; or(ii)as part of the activities of a club or similar organisation which is not established or conducted for profit;
(l)the performance of a literary, dramatic or musical work by an amateur club or society, if the performance is given to a non-paying audience, or for the benefit of a religious institution;
(m)the reproduction in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical of an article on current economic, political, social or religious topics, unless the author of such article has expressly reserved to himself the right of such reproduction;
(n)the storing of a work in any medium by electronic means by a non-commercial public library, for preservation if the library already possesses a non-digital copy of the work;
(o)the making of not more than three copies of a book (including a pamphlet, sheet of music, map, chart or plan) by or under the direction of the person in charge of a non- commercial public library for the use of the library if such book is not available for sale in India;
(p)the reproduction, for the purpose of research or private study, or with a view to publication, of an unpublished literary, dramatic or musical works kept in a library, museum or other institution to which the public has access:Provided that where the identity of the author of any such work or, in the case of a work of joint authorship, of any of the authors is known to the library, museum or other institution, as the case may be, the provisions of this Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:29:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14689/2016 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined clause shall apply only if such reproduction is made at a time more than sixty years from the date of the death of the author or, in the case of a work of joint authorship, from the death of the author whose identity is known or, if the identity of more authors than one is known from the death of such of those authors who died last;
(q)the reproduction or publication of--(i)any matter which has been published in any Official Gazette except an Act of a Legislature;(ii)any Act of a Legislature subject to the condition that such Act is reproduced or published together with any commentary thereon or any other original matter;(iii)the report of any committee, commission, council, board or other like body appointed by the Legislature, unless the reproduction or publication of such report is prohibited by the Government;(iv)any judgment or order of a court, Tribunal or other judicial authority, unless the reproduction or publication of such judgment or order is prohibited by the court, the Tribunal or other judicial authority, as the case may be;
(r)the production or publication of a translation in any Indian language of an Act of a Legislature and of any rules or orders made thereunder--(i)if no translation of such Act or rules or orders in that language has previously been produced or published by the Government; or(ii)where a translation of such Act or rules or orders in that language has been produced or published by the Government, if the translation is not available for sale to the public:Provided that such translation contains a statement at a prominent place to the effect that the translation has not been authorised or accepted as authentic by the Government;
(s)the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a work of architecture or the display of a work of architecture;
(t)the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a sculpture, or other artistic work falling under sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of section 2, if such work is permanently situate in a public place or Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:29:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14689/2016 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined any premises to which the public has access;
(u)the inclusion in a cinematograph film of--(i)any artistic work permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access; or(ii)any other artistic work, if such inclusion is only by way of background or is otherwise incidental to the principal matters represented in the film;(v)the use by the author of an artistic work, where the author of such work is not the owner of the copyright therein, of any would, cast, sketch, plan, model or study made by him for the purpose of the work:Provided that he does not thereby repeat or imitate the main design of the work;
(w)the making of a three-dimensional object from a two- dimensional artistic work, such as a technical drawing, for the purposes of industrial application of any purely functional part of a useful device;
(x)the reconstruction of a building or structure in accordance with the architectural drawings or plans by reference to which the building or structure was originally constructed:Provided that the original construction was made with the consent or licence of the owner of the copyright in such drawings and plans;
(y)in relation to a literary, dramatic, artistic or musical work recorded or reproduced in any cinematograph film, the exhibition of such film after the expiration of the term of copyright therein:Provided that the provisions of sub- clause (ii) of clause (a), sub-clause (i) of clause (b) and clauses (d), (f), (g), (m) and (p) shall not apply as respects any act unless that act is accompanied by an acknowledgement--(i)identifying the work by its title or other description; and(ii)unless the work is anonymous or the author of the work has previously agreed or required that no acknowledgement of his name should be made, also identifying the author;
(z)the making of an ephemeral recording, by a broadcasting organisation using its own facilities for its own broadcast by a broadcasting organisation of a work which it has the Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:29:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14689/2016 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined right to broadcast; and the retention of such recording for achival purposes on the ground of its exceptional documentary character;
(za)the performance of a literary, dramatic or musical work or the communication to the public of such work or of a sound recording in the course of any bona fide religious ceremony or an official ceremony held by the Central Government or the State Government or any local authority.Explanation.--For the purpose of this clause, religious ceremony including a marriage procession and other social festivities associated with a marriage. (zb)the adaptation, reproduction, issue of copies or communication to the public of any work in any accessible format, by--(i)any person to facilitate persons with disability to access to works including sharing with any person with disability of such accessible format for private or personal use, educational purpose or research; or(ii)any organisation working for the benefit of the persons with disabilities in case the normal format prevents the enjoyment of such works by such persons:Provided that the copies of the works in such accessible format are made available to the persons with disabilities on a non-profit basis but to recover only the cost of production:Provided further that the organization shall ensure that the copies of works in such accessible format are used only by persons with disabilities and takes reasonable steps to prevent its entry into ordinary channels of business. Explanation.--For the purposes of the sub-clause, "any organization" includes and organization registered under section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) and working for the benefit of persons with disability or recognized under Chapter X of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection or Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996) or receiving grants from the government for facilitating access to persons with disabilities or an educational institution or library or archives recognized by the Government.
(zc)the importation of copies of any literary or artistic work, such as labels, company logos or promotional or explanatory material, that is purely incidental to other goods or products being imported lawfully.
Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:29:19 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14689/2016 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined (2)The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply to the doing of any act in relation to the translation of a literary, dramatic or musical work or the adaptation of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work as they apply in relation to the work itself."
9. Section 52 of the Copyright Act is provisio to section 51 of the Copyright Act and provides certain acts not to be infringement of copyright. The petitioners if pleaded their case under section 52 and claimed defence available under section 52, it would be different position. Here it is case of the petitioners that since complainant is repeatedly filing civil and criminal litigation, it amounts to abuse of process of law. However, conjoint reading of section 55 and section 63 of the Copyright Act, manifestly makes it clear that parties are entitle to maintain civil and criminal proceedings for civil or criminal remedies. Every act of infringement of copyright gives fresh right to registered owner to maintain proceedings.
10. Now plain reading of previous FIR, unsuccessful attempt of filing complaint and present FIR, it appears that even after compromise took place between parties, the petitioners are continuously violating / infringing registered copyright of the complainant and it gives fresh cause of action.
11. In the case of Bengal Waterproof Limited v/s. Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Company and Anr. [(1997) 1 SCC 99] Hon'ble Apex Court held that whenever deceitful act committed, person deceived would have fresh cause of action. In this circumstances, argument of learned advocate Mr.Jasani that complainant is filing civil and criminal litigation one after Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:29:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14689/2016 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined another, is abuse of process of law is thus not acceptable.
12. More, on filing of FIR, the petitioner has approached this Court and thwart investigation. With profit, I may refer to judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Odisha v/ s. Pratima Mohanty [(2022) 16 SCC 703], the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 11 has held as under :-
"11. While quashing the criminal proceedings the High Court has not at all adverted to itself the aforesaid aspects and has embarked upon an enquiry as to the reliability and genuineness of the evidence collected during the investigation as if the High Court was conducting the mini trial. Therefore, as such the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the respondents herein original accused Nos. 4, 5 and 3 - Smt. Pratima Mohanty, Shri Prakash Chandra Patra and Shri Rajendra Kumar Samal is unsustainable, both, in law and/or facts and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside."
13. In the case of Kaptan Singh v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2021) 9 SCC 35], the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 9.2 has held as under :-
"9.2 In the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar (Supra) after considering the decisions of this Court in Bhajan Lal (Supra), it is held by this Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is further observed that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in section itself. It is further observed that appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Similar view has been expressed Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:29:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14689/2016 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined by this Court in the case of Arvind Khanna [(2019) 10 SCC 686], Managipet [(2019) 19 SCC 87 and in the case of XYZ (Supra), referred to hereinabove."
14. Again word of caution has been expressed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. B.Bhajanlal & ors., AIR 1992 SC 604. The Hon'ble Apex Court summed up the proposition of law, which reads as under:-
"We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."
15. In view of above, applying aforesaid ratio to the facts of the case, I find no substance in the argument of learned advocate Mr.Jasani to quash the FIR on the ground that multiple times complainant has lodged, as such complaint is abuse of process of law. Prima facie infringement of copyright is made out. In view of above, present petition deserves no consideration.
16. Under the circumstances, it seems that the petitioner has failed to make out the case for quashment of the FIR. The petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SATISH Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 00:29:19 IST 2025