Anyone Can Initiate FIR For Copyright Infringement U/S 63, Locus Standi is Foreign to Criminal Jurisprudence: Himachal Pradesh High Court

HP High Court Dismisses Plea to Quash Copyright Infringement FIR, Upholds Right of Any Person to Initiate Criminal Proceedings

Shimla , HP – The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, has dismissed a petition to quash an FIR for copyright infringement, reinforcing the principle that "locus standi is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence." Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that any person can set the criminal law in motion for a cognizable offense, such as one under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and the complainant need not be the copyright owner.

The Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings against Dr. Ena Sharma , accused of plagiarizing research material for a medical journal article, finding that the allegations prima facie constituted a cognizable offense warranting a full investigation.

---

Background of the Case

The case originated from a complaint filed by a Senior Resident at Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar Medical College, Nahan. She alleged that Dr. Ena Sharma (the petitioner) had misused an X-ray image, surgery image, and other research material from a 2017 article she had co-authored for the International Journal of Advanced Research (IJAR) . The allegedly infringing article was published in the Journal of Pharmaceutical Research International (JPRI) in 2021.

Consequently, an FIR was registered under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, which penalizes the infringement of copyright. Dr. Sharma moved the High Court to quash the FIR, arguing that the complaint was baseless and motivated by a matrimonial dispute between the informant and her husband, Dr. Amit Lakhani , who was a co-author on both articles.

---

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioner's Arguments (Dr. Ena Sharma ): - The petitioner's counsel argued that both research articles were based on studies exclusively conducted by Dr. Amit Lakhani , who was the principal author. - It was contended that the informant was included as an author in the first paper merely to enhance her professional profile and held no actual copyright. - The petitioner claimed there was no copyright infringement as the studies were distinct, and any similar images were the exclusive research of Dr. Lakhani . - A key argument was that the informant lacked the locus standi (the right to bring an action) to file the complaint, as the copyright had been assigned to the journal (IJAR), and any grievance should have been addressed to the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR).

Respondents' Arguments (The State and the Informant): - The informant's counsel argued that she was a joint author and the concept of locus standi is alien to criminal law. - It was asserted that once the copyright was assigned to IJAR, neither Dr. Lakhani nor any other author had the right to reuse the material without permission. - The use of images from the first article in the second constituted a prima facie infringement of copyright. - The State argued that the investigation was at a nascent stage and that quashing the FIR would be premature.

---

Court's Analysis and Legal Principles Applied

Justice Rakesh Kainthla conducted a thorough review of the legal principles governing the quashing of FIRs and the fundamentals of copyright law. The Court referenced landmark Supreme Court judgments, including A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , to underscore its reasoning.

Key Findings:

1. On Locus Standi: The Court emphatically rejected the petitioner's argument on locus standi. Citing A.R. Antulay , the judgment noted: > "It is a well-recognised principle of criminal jurisprudence that anyone can set or put the criminal law into motion, except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary... Locus standi of the complainant is a concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence..."

2. Cognizable Offense under Copyright Act: The Court relied on Knit Pro International v. State (NCT of Delhi) to affirm that an offense under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is cognizable. This means the police have the authority to register an FIR and investigate without a Magistrate's order, and any person can report the offense.

3. Prima Facie Infringement: The Court observed that a "perusal of the two articles clearly shows that some images published in the first article have been reproduced in the second article." This prima facie established a case of copyright infringement, as copyright protects the form and expression, and an exact copy is not required to prove a violation.

4. Mala Fide Intent: On the allegation that the FIR was lodged with malicious intent due to a private grudge, the Court held that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise justified by evidence, cannot be quashed solely on the ground of mala fides.

5. Alternative Remedies: The Court dismissed the argument that civil remedies or a complaint to the ICMR barred criminal proceedings, stating that civil and criminal remedies can be pursued simultaneously.

---

Final Decision

Concluding that the allegations in the FIR made out a prima facie cognizable offense, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the ongoing police investigation. The petition to quash the FIR was dismissed.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the disposal of the petition and would not influence the merits of the case during the trial. This judgment serves as a strong reminder that copyright protection is a serious matter and that procedural technicalities like locus standi will not shield alleged infringers from criminal investigation.