IMPORTANT POINT
An FIR filed by an unauthorized officer without a written complaint is invalid under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside of an FIR being II-C.R. No.172 of 2013 registered with ‘B’Division Police Station, Jamnagar City dated 29.07.2013 for offense punishable under Sections 63 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 and Sections 4(A), 7, 16 and 17 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.

2. Learned advocate for the applicants has raised the contention that the FIR itself could not have been filed by the officer of the level of Police Sub Inspector, Local Crime Branch, Jamnagar, who is the informant of the FIR in view of the provisions of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, particularly where under Section 18, cognizance is to be taken on the basis of a written complaint by an Authorized Officer. According to the learned advocate for the applicants, neither there is any written complaint given to the concerned Court nor the informant is an authorized officer as contemplated in the definition under Section 2(a).

2.1 Learned advocate has thereafter, submitted that the FIR is registered with malafide intention only on the basis of some written communication from in the name of Media Pro Enterprise India Private Limited, Mumbai (West). Upon which, the informant undertook private inquiry and then registered the FIR. Learned advocate submitted that in any case, the offense as alleged could not be made out against the present applicants, who were representatives of Den Networks Limited which had entered into memorandum of understanding with the Media Pro Enterprise India Private Limited on whose communication the entire proceedings were initiated by the Police Sub Inspector. The Memorandum of Understanding was entered into in the month of March-2013 and was therefore, in existence at the stage when the FIR came to be registered.

2.2 Learned advocate has therefore, submitted that the FIR itself deserves to be quashed as there is no process as is required by the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, which is followed.

2.3 Learned advocate has submitted that though in the FIR, Section 63 of the Copy Right Act is mentioned, yet there is no allegation which would support the requirement of Section 63 of the Copy Right Act and mere mention of having found certain CDs and other material at the place of work of the applicants, would not make an offense under the provisions of Section 63. It is submitted that there are no complaints which are filed by any individual with regard to the CDs.

3. As against this, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the in all there are 13 accused, of which except for the present three applicants, against 10 accused, the charge-sheet is already filed and the trial is proceeding and therefore, against the applicants also, the same process may be adopted and they be relegated to the trial Court.

3.1. With regard to the submission on the authorization to the authorized officer to file a complaint, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has referred to the investigation case papers from which on a communication dated 11.01.2023 by the Media Pro addressed to the Superintendent of Police, a remark is made and apparently on such remark, the FIR has been registered after finding material which would constitute an offense.

4. The Court has heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. The FIR was registered on 28.07.2013 at the behest of one I.K.Shaikh, Police Sub- Inspector, Local Crime Branch, Jamnagar, who has referred in his FIR a communication dated 17.01.2013 by the Media Pro Enterprise India Private Limited, Mumbai (West) which had made an allegation of running of illegal television viewing channel without any authorization and therefore, notices have been issued to such individuals, who were responsible for running unauthorized channels.

5. The Court is concerned with three applicants who are before the Court. Annexure