Madras High Court
S.Shankar vs Aarur Tamilnandan ... 1St
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON: 06.03.2019
(Through Video Conference)
PRONOUNCED ON : .06.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Crl OP Nos.14154 and 13271 of 2011
S.Shankar ... Petitioner in CrlOP No.14154 of 2011
/ 1st accused
Kalanithi Maran ... Petitioner in CrlOP No.13271 of 2011
/ 2nd accused
Vs.
Aarur Tamilnandan ... 1st respondent in both Petitions
/ Complainant
Kalanithimaran ....2nd respondent in CrlOP No.14154 of 2011
/ 2nd accused
Shankar ... 2nd Respondent in CrlOP No.13271 of 2011
/ 1st accused
Common Prayer: Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, seeking to call for the records relating to proceedings in CC No.2067 of
2011 on the file of the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai -8
and quash the same and allow the above Criminal Original Petitions.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Ravindran
for M/s.B.K.GirishNeelakantan
in CrlOP No.13271/2011
:Mr.P.Wilson
Senior Counsel for
Mr.D.Saikumaran
in CrlOP No.14154/2011
For Respondent No.1: Mr.P.Kumaresan
For Respondent No.2: Mr.P.Satheesh kumar
for M/s.K.Elangovan
COMMON ORDER
Both these criminal original petitions have been filed challenging the complaint in C.C.No.2067 of 2011, on the file of the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai - 8 and to quash the same.
2.The case in C.C.No.2067 of 2011 was filed by the 1st respondent herein as against these petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 63 of the Copy Right Act and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the same was filed by way of a private complaint and the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate satisfied that there exists prima facie case has taken the complaint on file and the same is pending as against these petitioners.
3.The case of the first respondent in his complaint in C.C.No.2067 of http://www.judis.nic.in 2011 is that he is a Tamil Writer and he has written many short stories, novels 3 and poems. One such short story written by the complainant by name 'Jugiba' was published in a Tamil monthly magazine namely 'Iniya Udhayam' in April, 1996. The same story was again published in another book namely 'Thik Thik Deepika' in the year 2007. Alleging that the subject film, namely, Enthiran was directed by the 1st accused by using the complainant's work in Jugiba, he has filed a suit in CS No.914 of 2010 seeking a declaration that the complainant is the author and first owner of the copy right of the story Enthiran and also for a declaration that the film Enthiran is the infringing copy of the complainant's story Jugiba. According to the 1st respondent / complainant the film Enthiran directed by the 1st accused and produced by the 2nd accused is a pirated story of his work Jugiba and through the film, the accused have earned huge profit and hence, the accused have committed the offence punishable under Sections 63 of the Copy Right Act and 420 IPC.
4.Since the issue involved in both the petitions are one and the same, both the petitions are heard together and are disposed of by way of this common order. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are being referred to as per their ranks before the Court below.
5.The learned Senior Counsel Mr.P.Wilson appearing for the 1st accused has raised the following points in support of his case. http://www.judis.nic.in 4
(i)The allegations levelled by the complainant are baseless and there is no similarity between the story Jugiba and the film Enthiran.
(ii)The concept of humanoid robots may be same, but, in fact, there are several movies in the past, which had described humanoid robots. The Director of the film being a Diploma Engineer had developed the story of Enthiran for several years.
(iii)The story of film Enthiran and Jugiba are entirely different. The Robot in the movie Enthiran does not commit suicide; it resembles its creator; it was created for serving in Army; it does not have any feelings initially and with great difficulty, the scientist brought the feelings in it; it has been loaded with destruction software chip by a rival scientist, subsequently the same was removed and finally, the robot did not commit suicide, but was dismantled and kept in a Museum. Whereas, as per the story Jugiba, the scientist had not created the Robot for any military purpose and in the end of the story, the Robot committed suicide. Therefore, there is no similarity between his film Enthiran and the story Jugiba.
(iv)The first respondent has filed this complaint before the http://www.judis.nic.in 5 Magistrate Court after he became unsuccessful in obtaining any interim order in CS No.914 of 2010, it will be apparent that the 1st respondent himself has knocked at the doors of the Court under Section 17 of Copy Right Act, 1957 and sought for a declaration to declare him as the first author of the film Enthiran and also for other consequential reliefs and without a declaration that he is the first author, the complaint cannot be maintained.
(v) Section 63 of the Copy Right Act can be invoked, only when there is infringement of copy right in work. In as much as the 1st respondent himself has filed a suit in CS No.914 of 2010 for declaring him as the first owner of the copy right of the film Enthiran. Apart from that suit there are several other suits filed by various other persons that the story of Enthiran was theirs and the same are pending till date. When the suits are still pending, entertaining the complaint is an abuse of process. The learned Senior Counsel had also relied upon the following judgments in support of his contention.
1.R.G.Anand Vs.Delux Films and ors, reported in (1978) 4 SCC 118;
2.Krishika Lulla and others Vs. Shyam Vithalrao Devkatta and another, reported in CDJ 2015 SC 821;
3.Susi Ganesan and Others Vs.V.Elango, reported in CDJ 2016 MHC 5085; and
4.P.Ponnusamy Vs. M/s.UTV Motion Pictures and another, reported http://www.judis.nic.in in CDJ 2012 MHC 5120;
6
6.The learned Counsel for the 2nd accused/ the producer of the film Enthiran, sails with the arguments advanced by the learned Senior counsel for the 1st accused. In addition to the same, he would submit that the 2nd accused is only a Managing Director of the production company and he had nothing to do with the story. In fact, it is the case of the complainant that the 1st accused, who is the story writer, screen play writer and director of the film Enthiran, has stolen the story Jugiba. While so, this petitioner / 2nd accused, being the producer, is in no way connected with the alleged infringement and therefore, he prays for allowing his petition.
7.Per contra, Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the complainant is working as a Sub-Editor in a Publication and his stories are published in various magazines from the year 1992. The Government of Tamil Nadu has also recognised him with Kalaimamani award. One of his stories, namely, Jugiba was published for the first time in April' 1996 in a Tamil monthly magazine namely Iniya Udhayam. It was appreciated by lakhs of readers and therefore it was re-published in the year 2007, in the book titled as “Thik Thik Deepika”. This book has been purchased by the Government of Tamil Nadu for circulating the same, in all its libraries throughout the State. While so, this motion picture namely Enthiran directed http://www.judis.nic.in 7 by the 1st accused and produced by the 2nd accused was released on 01.10.2010 and it has the verbatim of the story Jugiba from the beginning to end. He also pointed out 29 similarities between his story Jugiba and the motion picture Enthiran.
8.The learned Counsel further submitted that as soon as the complainant came to the know this piracy, he sought for permission for prosecution from the publisher of Indiya Udhyam on 11.01.2010. The Publisher gave his consent on 15.10.2010 and thereafter, he lodged a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, on 25.10.2010. The act of the accused is a clear violation of Section 63 of the Copy Right Act, which is a cognizable offence, but the Police have not acted on his compliant. Thereafter, he filed a civil suit in CS No.914 of 2010 on 02.11.2010 before this Court for compensation from the accused for the violation of copy right. Since the Copy Right Act provides for civil and criminal consequences, he also filed this complaint before XIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court under Section 200 CrPC and the learned Magistrate after satisfying with the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant and the materials placed on record, has taken cognizance of the complaint on 01.03.2011 for the offence punishable under Section 63 of the Copy Right Act and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. According to the complainant, the rights of infringement under the Copy Right http://www.judis.nic.in 8 Act, can be simultaneously prosecuted as both are mutually exclusive. Closing of a criminal complaint on the reason of pending civil suit is against law and in view of the statutory bar under Section 362 CrPC, there cannot be any reopening or review after the disposal of the civil suit. Merely because three civil suits are pending against the accused for the violation of copy right, the same cannot be a legal impediment.
9.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the documents placed on record.
10.The main allegation of the complainant is that the story of film Enthiran is a pirated one, which is his work namely Jugiba: The story Jugiba written by the complainant is as follows;
“A scientist namely Robin by spending four years created a super power Robot namely Jugiba. It has the ability to store all the details right from the Adam and Eve period to the present. It can move and rotate its joints in any direction and perceive situation and act accordingly. It resembles a human and it is capable of doing all activities like a human. Robin was ready to introduce the Robot in the conference on the next day. Elated by his achievement, Robin calls his lover to his lab to show http://www.judis.nic.in 9 Jugiba and she was also neglected while creating the Robot. Joshepin rushed to the lab. Robin informs her that he has achieved his life time ambition of creating a super Robot and he is ready to marry her. Robin introduces Joshephin to Jugiba as his sweetheart and love. Jugiba extended its metal hand to shake, but Joshepin afraid of it and went back. Robin convinced her that it is more or less a human and it will not harm her. Joshepin extended her hand, after shaking hands Jugiba admired her hand as so soft. Jugiba ogled at Joshepin and started talking to her. It describes Joshepin in poetic form. It also expresses its love to Jospehin and insisted her to live with it.
Robin lost his temper and shouted at Jugiba explaining that Jugiba is only a metal and machine; Joshephin is flesh and blood and they cannot live together.
Hearing this, Jugiba cries by saying it cannot live without Joshephin. It sheds tears and commits suicide by jumping from the building.” http://www.judis.nic.in 10
11.The story of the film Enthiran in short is as follows:
“The scientist creates a Robot Chitty by spending several years. While doing so, he even neglected his lover's phone calls and massages. Finally, he created the Robot Chitty. It has been stored with the details of everything in the world. It can move its parts in any direction. It was created to use the same to induct in the army and to use in emergency situation to help the people. He introduces it to his lover and his lover Adhithi, who was angry, convinced, taken the Robot Chitty to her hostel. The Robot Chitty helps her for her examination.
The scientist introduces his humanoid Robot Chitty in a conference of defence personnel for inducting the Robot Chitty in the army. A rival scientist, who was unsuccessful in making a humanoid Robot, critisizes the Robot Chitty that it does not have sense and therefore, the scientist developed the Robot Chitty with sense. In an occasion the Robot Chitty helps a pregnant lady with complication to deliver a baby without caesarian. In a mark of admiration Adhithi runs towards the Robot Chitty, hugs around it and kisses it on the cheeks. As she kisses it, there was a http://www.judis.nic.in 11 change in Chitty and it developed love with Adhithi.
The rival scientist loaded Chitty with a destruction software and subsequently, it was removed. Finally, Robot dismantles itself.”
12.The complainant has pointed out 29 similarities by comparing his story Jugiba with the film Enthiran and some of the similarities are discussed hereunder:
Sl In Story In Film
No Jugiba Enthiran
1 The scientist says that as a result The scientist says that by spending
for spending four years time, the ten years, he has created the Robot is standing before him. Robot Chitty.
2 The scientist says that for creating The scientist avoids his romantic Robot – Jugiba, he avoided his days, he avoids the calls from her romantic days for years together. lover and therefore, her lover got angry and shout at the assistants of the scientist. She went to the extent of breaking up the love with the scientist.
3 The scientist says that it is an The scientist in the film also
ultimate achievement in the human describes the Robot Chitty as it is
history. It is the result of the an ultimate achievement in the
computer formulae he created by history.
using his knowledge
4 The scientist says that the Robot The scientist also has beard.
Jugiba is the boon to his research, When the scientist arrives at his which he did even without having home after successfully creating time to shave his beard. the Robot Chitty, his mother told him that he looks like a saint and asked him to cut his hair and to http://www.judis.nic.in shave his beard.
125 The scientist describes the Robot There is a scene that the Robot that with its rolling neon eyes, Chitty rolls its neon eyes and it can record, whatever it sees. records the things within by way of photographs.
When the scientist goes to the parlour, the Robot memorises the books including the telephone directory and tells the phone number, when someone asks.
6 The scientist describes the Robot There are scenes that the Robot that it answers the question asked Chitty answers the questions in through electronic synthesizer, metallic voice. immediately in metallic voice.
7 The scientist says that he created It is shown that the Robot Chitty the Robot like a human being with has been created by using special a special fibre. material.
8 The scientists says that he would The scientist introduces the Robot introduce the Robot in the in a conference and the Robot conference on the next day and exhibits it skills and the spectators asked it to show its skills and to gave applause.
astonish others.
9 The scientist says that the details It is shown that all the details from the Adam Period till date have available in the world have been stored in the memory storage of stored in the Robot.
the Robot Jugiba. The Robot knows such as
Mathematics, Dance, Music and
Medicine, etc.,
10 The Robot Jugiba rotates its metal The Robot rotates its head and
hands in all directions and hands in all directions completes the work assigned to it properly 11 The Robot Jugiba takes decision It is shown that the Robot Chitty and acts according to the situation. understands the situation and acts accordingly.
For example; it rescues the people from fire; it helps a pregnant woman with complicity by using http://www.judis.nic.in the details stored in it.
13
12 The scientist says that only after The scientist says that he decided
succeeding in his research, not to meet his lover, till he
he would marry. succeeds in his attempts in
creating the Robot.
13 The Robot Jugiba gets feeling of The Robot Chitty gets the feeling
love when it handshakes with the of love when the lover of the lover of the scientist. scientist kisses it.
14 The Robot Jugiba boldly tells his The Robot Chitty tells the scientist creator that it loves Josephin his that it loves his lover. lover.
15 The Robot says without Josephin, The Robot Chitty also says that it
it cannot live. cannot live without his lover.
16 At the end, the Robot Jugiba The Robot Chitty dismantles itself
commits suicide by jumping from at the end of the film. the second floor due to love failure.
13.It appears there are certain similarities in the concept, idea and the character portrayed between the story Jugiba and the Film Enthiran, such as,
(i) In Jugiba, the scientist had even neglected his lover for several years, for creating the Robot; in Enthiran, the Scientist had even did not care the messages and phone calls of his lover and he was busy in creating the Robot;
(ii) In Jugiba the scientist indents to introduces its Robot in the conference and the scientist in the film Enthiran introduces the Robot in the conference.
http://www.judis.nic.in 14
(iii) In Jugiba, the Robot gets the feeling of love while handshaking with Jospehin the lover of the scientist; likewise, in Enthiran, the Robot gets the feeling of love while Adithi the lover of the scientist kisses the Robot.
(iv)In Jugiba, due to the love failure with the lover of the scientist, it commits suicide; in the film Enthiran, the Robot dismantles itself.
14.This Court is of the view that the object of the Copy Right Act is to protect the author of the copyright work from an unlawful reproduction or exploitation of his work by others. When a person produces something with his skill and labour it normally belongs to him and other persons would not be permitted to make a profit out of the skills and labour of the original author.
15.The definition of the word author in clause (d) of Section 2 read with Section 17 lays emphasis on the fact that copy rights vest in that person, who is original creator of the work. The person, who gets registration earlier or who established to be earlier user can be presumed to be the author or original creator by the work.
16.It is to be noted that the story Jugiba was published by a registered Magazine Iniya Udhayam in the year 1996. The story Jugiba was also http://www.judis.nic.in 15 published by way of compilation in Thik Thik Deepika by Saaru Prabha Publications in the year 2007 and they do have a copy right for the same. The said Thik Thik Deepika book was also obtained by the Director of Public Library, Chennai, from Nakkheeran Pubilcations, Royapettah, Chennai 14, which is available in all the libraries all over Tamil Nadu in the book stalls. The film Enthiran was taken only in the year 2010. Admittedly, the story Jugiba was published well before the film Enthiran and available in the public domain. The word publication is defined under Section 3 of the Copy Right Act that making a work available to the public by issue of copies or by communicating the work to the public.
17.Halsbury's Laws Dictionary defines that copy right subsists not only in the actual words of the work but also in the dramatic incidents created. The author of the work is the first owner of the copy right as provided under Section 17 of the Act. Section 14 of the Copy Right Act defines Copy Right as an exclusive right, by virtue of it, in case literary dramatic and musical work, any form of reproducing by cinematograph film or sound recording is an infringement of copy right as per Sub clause (iv) of Clause (a) of Section 14 of the Copy Right Act, http://www.judis.nic.in 16
18.In R.G.Anand Vs. Delux Films and Others, reported in (1978) 4 SCC 118, The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines in deciding the violation of copy right in films as follows:
“Thus, on a careful consideration and elucidation of the various authorities and the case law on the subject discussed above, the following propositions emerge:
1.There can be no copyright in an idea, subject matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts and violation of the copyright in such cases is confined to the form, manner and arrangement and expression of the idea by the author of the copyright work.
2.Where the same idea is being developed in a different manner, it is manifest that the source being common, similarities are bound to occur. In such a case the courts should determine whether or not the similarities are on fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of expression adopted in the copyrighted work.
If the defendants work is nothing but a literal imitation of the copyrighted work with some variations here and there it would amount to violation of the copyright. In other words, in order to be actionable the copy must be a substantial and material one which at once leads to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty of an act of piracy.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3.One of the surest and the safest test to determine 17 whether or not there has been a violation of copyright is to seeing the reader, spectator or the viewer after having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original.
4.Where the theme is the same but is presented and treated differently so that the subsequent work becomes a completely new work, no question of violation of copyright arises.
5.Where however apart from the similarities appearing in the two works there are also material and broad dissimilarities which negative the intention to copy the original and the coincidences appearing in the two works are clearly incidental no infringement of the copyright comes into existence.
6.As a violation of copyright amounts to an act of piracy it must be proved by clear and cogent evidence after applying the various tests laid down by the case law discussed above.
7.Where however the question is of the violation of the copyright of stage play by a film producer or a Director the task of the plaintiff becomes more difficult to prove piracy. It is manifest that unlike a stage play a film has a much broader prospective, a wider field and a bigger background where the defendants can by introducing a variety of incidents give a colour and complexion different from the manner in which the copyrighted work has expressed the idea. Even so, if the viewer after seeing the film gets http://www.judis.nic.in a totality of impression that the film is by and large a copy of the 18 original play, violation of the copyright may be said to be proved.”
19.Applying the facts of the case with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the resemblance as portrayed by the first respondent are close and strikingly lead to a conclusion in favour of the first respondent/ complainant. There is a substantial identity between the story Jugiba and the film Enthiran. The contents, arrangement and the theme are more or less similar. It is highly improbable that two authors would express their thoughts in the same tone or manner. To constitute reproduction, exact copying is not necessary. Even on a layman view, if it appears the subsequent work was appropriated from the earlier work is sufficient and therefore, applying the guideline Nos.3 and 7 in R.G.Anand's case, similarities of incidents and situations undoubtedly afforded prima facie as against the accused No.1. For proceeding with the complaint what is required is whether a prima facie case is made out or not. As discussed above there are similarities between the story Jugiba and the film Enthiran and the 1st respondent/ complainant has made out a prima facie case for proceeding against the 1st accused for the infringement of the copy right.
20.The other contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the complainant has filed a suit before this Court for declaring him as the first author of the film Enthiran and without deciding the same, the complaint cannot be allowed to proceed. In this regard, it is necessary to refer the http://www.judis.nic.in 19 following decisions laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court,
21.In B.N.Kashyap Vs. Emperor, reported in 5 AIR (1945) Lah 23, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"There is no reason in my judgment as to why the decision of the civil Court particularly in an action in personam should be allowed to have that sanctity. There appears to be no sound reason for that view. To hold that when a party has been able to satisfy a civil court as to the justice of his claim and has in the result succeeded in obtaining a decree which is final and binding upon the parties, it would not be open to criminal Courts to go behind the findings of the civil Court is to place the latter without any valid reason in a much higher position than what it actually occupies in the system of administration in this country and to make it master not only of cases which it is called upon to adjudicate but also of cases which it is not called upon to determine and over which it has really no control. The fact is that the issues in the two cases although based on the same facts (and strictly speaking even parties in the two proceedings) are not identical and there appears to be no sufficient reason for delaying the proceedings in the criminal court, which, unhampered by the civil court, is fully competent to decide the questions that arise before it for its decision and where in the nature of things there must be a speedy disposal.”
22.In Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam and another Vs State (Delhi Administration) and another, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 528, the Hon'ble http://www.judis.nic.in Supreme Court held as follows:
20
21.Indisputably, in a given case, a civil proceeding as also a criminal proceeding may proceed simultaneously. Cognizance in a criminal proceeding can be taken by the criminal court upon arriving at the satisfaction that there exists a prima facie case. The question as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case one or the other proceedings would be stayed would depend upon several factors including the nature and the stage of the case.
22.It is, however, now well settled that ordinarily a criminal proceeding will have primacy over the civil proceeding.
Precedence to a criminal proceeding is given having regard to the fact that disposal of a civil proceeding ordinarily takes a long time and in the interest of justice the former should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. The law in this behalf has been laid down in a large number of decisions. We may notice a few of them.
23.In M.S. Sheriff & anr. vs. State of Madras & Ors. [AIR 1954 SC 397], a Constitution Bench of this Court was seized of a question as to whether a civil suit or a criminal case should be stayed in the event both are pending; it was opined that the criminal matter should be given precedence. In regard to the possibility of conflict in decisions, it was held that the law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one Court binding on the other or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. It was held that the only relevant consideration was the likelihood of embarrassment.
http://www.judis.nic.in 21
24.If primacy is to be given to a criminal proceeding, indisputably, the civil suit must be determined on its own merit, keeping in view the evidences brought before it and not in terms of the evidence brought in the criminal proceeding.”
23.In Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Vs Meenakshi Marwah and another, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 370, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“Coming to the last contention that an effort should be made to avoid conflict of findings between the civil and criminal Courts, it is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. While examining a similar contention in an appeal against an order directing filing of a complaint under Section 476 of old Code, the following observations made by a Constitution Bench in M.S. Sheriff vs. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 397 give a complete answer to the problem posed :
"(15) As between the civil and the criminal proceedings http://www.judis.nic.in we are of the opinion that the criminal matters should 22 be given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. No hard and fast rule can be laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal Courts is a relevant consideration.
The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one Court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment.
(16) Another factor which weighs with us is that a civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime. The public interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure; that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. Another reason is that it is undesirable to let things slide till memories have grown too dim to trust.” This, however, is not a hard and fast rule. Special considerations obtaining in any particular case might make some other course more expedient and just. For example, the civil case or the other http://www.judis.nic.in criminal proceeding may be so near its end as to make it 23 inexpedient to stay it in order to give precedence to a prosecution ordered under. But in this case we are of the view that the civil suits should be stayed till the criminal proceedings have finished."
24.In view of the decisions cited above, it is clear that civil proceedings as well as the criminal proceedings may proceed simultaneously and pendency of the civil suit is not a bar for entertaining a complaint. Moreover, it is the specific case of the complainant that the accused dragged the civil suit without filing their written statements for more than six years and even thereafter, only on specific directions of the Court, the 1st accused appeared before the Court for his evidence and completed his evidence only on 08.08.2018. The Copy Right Act provides civil and criminal remedies and therefore, both can be proceeded simultaneously as the one is not mutually exclusive over the other.
25.As discussed above, the concept of the film Enthiran and the story Jugiba are almost similar and there is a prima facie case available as against the 1st accused to proceed under Section 63 of the Copy Right Act, but the ingredients of the complaint and the facts and circumstances of the case, do not make out a case for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and therefore, the charge as against the accused No.1, for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is liable to be quashed. Insofar as the 2nd accused is concerned, he is a mere producer and he has nothing to do with the story and http://www.judis.nic.in 24 hence, the proceedings as against the 2nd accused is liable to be quashed.
26.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition in Crl OP No.14154 of 2011 is partly allowed and the proceedings as against the 1st accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC alone is quashed and CrlOP No.13271 of 2011 is allowed and the proceedings in CC No.2067 of 2011 on the file of the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai -8, insofar as the 2nd accused is quashed.
27. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a celebrity and the petitioner's presence before the trial Court may draw crowd, which may cause hindrance to the smooth functioning of the Court and moreover, the offence as against the petitioner is under the Copy Right Act, which requires documentary evidence, this Court is inclined to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner during the course of the trial and the petitioner shall appear before the trial Court, as and when his presence is required by the trial Court.
Index : Yes/No 06.06.2019
Internet : Yes/No
dsk
To
The Metropolitan Magistrate XIII,
Egmore, Chennai -8
http://www.judis.nic.in
25
B.PUGALENDHI,J.,
dsk
Crl OP Nos.14154 and 13271 of 2011
06.06.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in