B.N. Karia, J.

1. The applicant-accused No. 25 has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 {"Cr.P.C." for brevity} for quashing and setting aside the complaint, being C.R. No. I-6 of 2011 registered with Surat City DCB Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under Section 379 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 51, 53, 64 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2-complainant is working in the capacity of Vice President (Internal Affairs) with Star Den India Private Limited, Mumbai, which is a distributor/content aggregator of channels mainly related to Star and other channels too, and in turn sub-lets the broadcasting rights to other media in the Surat City. That, the applicant and 25 of its operators named in the FIR have allegedly committed theft of the signal and broadcasted the channel without there being any authority to do so. It is alleged that the agreement between complainant and the applicant is breached unauthorizedly, in connivance with the other co-accused, by transmitting signals to co-accused and by giving them broadcasting rights dehors the agreement, and therefore, impugned complaint has been filed against the accused persons.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Bhadrish S. Raju for S.V. Raju Associates, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned advocate Mr. Abhishek M. Mehta appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and learned APP Mr. K.P. Raval appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1-State.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Bhadrish S. Raju has submitted that the impugned complaint is a cog in the elaborate conspiracy concocted by Gujarat Telelink Private Limited (GTPL), a rival of the applicant, with whom, Den Networks Limited (Joint venture partner in Star Den) is associated to develop their business in Surat and they have falsely implicated the applicant. That, the present FIR is nothing, but a mala fidely instituted proceeding with an ulterior motive to wreak havoc on the applicant and is nothing less than a gross abuse of the process of law. That, Section 379 IPC is the only offence, which is cognizable and has been invoked only with a view to see that a cognizable offence is registered against the applicant. In so far as other offence, as alleged under the provisions of Copyright Act, 1957 are concerned, the same are non-cognizable offence according to the schedule attached to the Code of Criminal Procedure. That, a bare reading of section 378 IPC would make it clear that it is only in the case of theft of movable property, offence of theft would be made out. But, in the present case, there is no theft of movable property involved. The so-called theft of signal is not theft of a movable property. That, the controverted allegations made in the FIR do not disclose commission of any offence and such allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused for the offences alleged in the FIR. That, the entire FIR is, independent of it being instituted mala fidely, a bogus one and a cunning attempt to cloak a pure civil dispute with criminal colours.

5. It is further argued by learned advocate Mr. Bhadrish S. Raju appearing on behalf of the applicant that nowhere in the FIR, it is alleged that any other decoders and/or viewing cards were being used, or that the signals were illegally obtained by the present applicant. He has placed certain invoices showing payment received by the respondent No. 2 of the services, which have been made till June 2011. It is further argued that payments have been made on the basis of all subscribers, who have been using the services, irrespective of the operators. That, the agreements were signed and for which payments have been made and the number of sub