No prima facie case exists for copyright infringement in the sale of duplicate spare parts; FIR is quashed as an abuse of the court's process.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent –States. Heard Mr. Sachin D. Vasavada, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Chintan Dave, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 – State Though served none appears for respondent Nos.2 & 3.

2. The present petition is filed for seeking following main prayers:-

“A. Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow the present Petition;

B. Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR registered as Crime Register No. 25/2014 at Annexure C and the criminal case.

C. Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the pending criminal proceedings and further be pleased to stay the FIR registered as Crime Register No. 25/2014 dated 11/07/2014 and further proceedings on the basis of the said FIR

D. Your Lordships may be pleased to grant ad interim relief. as prayed for, in terms of para 29 (C) during the pendency and final disposal of the present application.

E. Your Lordships may be pleased to grant any other and further relief/s as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice and fitness of things.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court to the factual matrix arising out of the application and also taken this Court through the impugned FIR and contended that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR are on basis of the fact that the complainant himself is an authorized person to carry out all procedure of infringement of any copyright. The allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner is selling duplicate spare-parts of the computer. It is pointed out that even though respondent No.2-First Informant was neither having any authorization under the law nor any assignment in his favour, with the help of police without any warrant ransacked the shop of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that on reading the impugned FIR as it is, no evidence as alleged has been made out. He further contended that the COPYRIGHT ACT is not applicable in the present case for sale of the spare-parts of the computers and the goods in which the petitioner deals with i.e. cartridge of printers and spare parts of computers, provisions of the COPYRIGHT ACT are also not attracted at all.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that respondent No.2-First Informant has not produced anything on record that to show that he is authorized person to file the complaint and therefore, he contended that the First Information Report is an abuse of process of Court and law, and therefore, the same is required to be quashed by exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. He further relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Binita Rahul Shah Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2009(3) GLR 2688 and contended that the ratio laid down in the said case squarely applies to the facts of the present case. He further pointed out that in a similarly situated case of the facts as well as law, this Court has quashed the complaint as prayed for.

6. Per contra, Mr. Chintan Dave, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 has submitted that the impugned FIR is for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyrights Act, 1957 and under Sections 406 and 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860, however it may be noted that learned APP has not been able to point out that the allegations levelled in the First Information Report relate to any of the items, which are envisaged under the purview and ambit of the COPYRI