SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Guj) 254

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
BINITA RAHUL SHAH & 5 - Applicants
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondents
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 7951 of 2003
Decided on : 23/04/2009

Advocates appeared
MR TS NANAVATI for Applicant
MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR, APP. for Respondent
None for Respondent
MR UI VYAS for Respondent

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 63 and 63A - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 420, 424 and 120B - Offence of Cheating - Quashing of FIR - When warranted - Infringement of copyright of complainant's design, industrial drawings of machinery - Allegation as to - Appeal against - Held, No case of infringement under the provisions of Copyright Act is made out - Entire case is based on infringement under the Copyright Act and the provisions of Indian Penal Code are not independent of such infringement but are in conjunction and in aid of such act of infringement - Criminal proceedings set into motion by virtue of written private complaint converted into FIR cannot be permitted to continue - FIR quashed and set aside - Application allowed

ORAL JUDGMENT

1 This application has been preferred under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CRPC) seeking quashing of FIRST INFORMATION REPORT (FIR) No.I.296/03 lodged with Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad for alleged offences under sections 63 and 63A of the Copyright Act, 1957 (Copyright Act) as well as sections 406, 420, 424 read with section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

2 The case of the applicants, more particularly Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 is that on or about 16.6.1998 the said two Applicants, who are wife and husband respectively, commenced business in the name of a Registered Partnership Firm known as Avi Trading Company. There were other family members who were partners. The business of the Firm consisted of manufacturing and marketing of textile machinery and the said Firm continues with the same business even today. It is the say of the Applicants that the word 'AVI' has been coined by using the first and last letters of their two daughters, Anuja and Vaibhavi, 'A' from Anuja and 'V&I' from Vaibhavi.

3 That on expansion of volume of business M/s. Avi Engineering Pvt. Ltd.(the Company) was incorporated on or about 24.3.1994, wherein Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 were Directors. The said Company commenced manufacturing Cotton Ginning related machinery which included Lint Cleaner (also known as Super Step Cleaner or Post Cleaning Cleaner) and Stationery Condenser (also known as Trolley) and Cotton Ginning Trolley (also known as Bucket or Air Separator). These machineries are manufactured by using traditionally prevalent designs in the industry and the designs are neither new nor original nor invented by any one including opponent No.3, Shri Naranbhai R. Kadia, one Shri Devang Shah, or by Avi Sales Private Ltd. In fact the Company is using the said designs since 1997.

4 Avi Sales Private Ltd. is a Company incorporated on 2.11.1998. There were three Directors in the said Company viz. Applicant No.2 herein, Shri Rahul Ramnikbhai Shah, Shri Naranbhai Kadia and Shri Devang Shah.

5 During calendar year 1999, Avi Engineering Private Ltd. started manufacturing machinery known as Cotton Ginning Trolley (also known as Janki Rath) on the basis of a design developed by the Applicants. The Applicants have manufactured about 152 trolleys and most of them have been sold through Avi Sales Private Ltd.

6 It is the say of Shri Naranbhai Kadia and Shri Devang Shah that Applicant No.2 was removed as Director from Avi Sales Private Ltd., but Applicant No.2 does not accept such removal and claims that Applicant No.2 continues to be the Director of Avi Sales Private Ltd. It is further averred that in absence of Applicant No.2, Avi Sales Private Ltd. has started manufacturing similar trolley fraudulently and after imitating design developed by Avi Engineering Private Ltd., and such manufacture has commenced on or around 2002.

7 This is the backdrop in which the present application and the FIR have to be considered. It is the say of the Applicants that none of the ingredients of the alleged offences are shown to be satisfied so as to warrant lodging of such FIR and the entire action being malafide, the FIR is required to be quashed.

8 On behalf of the Applicants, it was submitted that a civil dispute between the parties has been used to initiate criminal proceedings without even primafacie establishing in what manner the Applicants are shown to have committed the alleged offences, as no offences have at all been committed. In this context, the learned Advocate referred to Civil Suit No. 2305 of 2003 filed in City Civil Court, Ahmedabad by Avi Sales Private Ltd. against Avi Engineering Private Ltd., Avi Trading Company (the Partnership Firm) and other six persons, including applicant Nos. 1 and 2, who are applicants in this application, to point out that in the said suit opponent No.3 and Shri Devang Shah had sought permanent and interim injunction in relation to registered design bearing No.191555 dated 19.3.2003, No.191559 dated


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top