Point of Law: Section 55 of Act deals with civil remedies for infringement of copyright, but it would be maintainable on a presumption that copyright has been infringed unless contrary is proved.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.362 of 2022 for offence punishable under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 and Sections 120B, 403, 465 and 34 of the IPC.

2. Facts adumbrated, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

Before embarking upon narration of facts, I deem it appropriate to notice the protagonists in the alleged crime. The 1st petitioner is the General Secretary of Indian National Congress, in-charge of Communication, Publicity, Media including Social and Digital Committee of the commerce. Petitioner No.2 is the Chairperson of the Social Media and Digital Platform of the Indian National Congress. The 3rd petitioner is the Member of the Steering Committee of the Indian National Congress. They are accused 1, 2 and 3. The 2nd respondent is the complainant, a partnership firm owning and broadcasting music in the name and style of “MRT Music”. The petitioners claim to be persons in public life and members closely associated with the Indian National Congress. The 1st petitioner is a Member of Parliament elected to the Rajya Sabha; the 2nd petitioner is a former journalist and currently serving as a National Spokesperson of the Indian National Congress and also heads Social Media Cell and the 3rd petitioner is the Member of Parliament elected to the Lok Sabha from Waynad Constituency, Kerala.

3. The issue crops up with Bharat Jodo Yatra (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Yatra’ for short). The Yatra is claimed to be the brain child of the 3rd petitioner for it to be an ongoing mass movement which envisaged organization and mobilization of general public through a walk from Kanyakumari to Kashmir spanning over 3570 kilometers over a period of 150 days. Insofar as Karnataka State is concerned Yatra enters the State on 30-09-2022 and ends on 20-10-2022 at Raichur. The issue does not concern any happenings during the Yatra with regard to public peace or otherwise. The petitioners have also their several media handles such as Face book, Twitter etc. and have reached out to millions and millions through social media and claimed to be in the principal opposition at the Centre/Parliament.

4. The 2nd respondent registers a complaint against the petitioners, on 04-11-2022. The allegation in the complaint is that popular songs from the film KGF Chapter-2 were played in the backdrop of the Yatra by violating the copyright, as it was without any agreement/permission from the hands of the assignee, the 2nd respondent. Based upon the said complaint, a crime comes to be registered in Crime No.362 of 2022 for the afore-quoted offences primarily, for violation of copyright, under Section 63 of the Act and Section 66 of the Information and Technology Act. Registration of the crime is what drives the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. This Court in terms of its order dated 16-12-2022 grants an interim order of stay of investigation in the aforesaid crime, however reserving liberty to the respondents to seek vacation of the interim order upon filing of statement of objections. The statement of objections along with an application seeking vacation of the interim order is filed by the respondents and the matter is heard. The interim order granted earlier still subsists in the case at hand.

5. Heard Sri Vikram Huilgol, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri S. Sriranga, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:

6. The learned senior counsel Sri Vikram Huilgol would submit that the petitioners have not violated any of the copyright of the owner of the copyright; the complainant is not the owner of the copyright; he is only a licensee from the copyright holder and, therefore, cannot be seen to complain th