Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH TH, J
Mathrubhumi Printing And Publishing Company Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Manoj Ravindran@nirakshran S/o. Late P.V. Raveendran – Respondent
ORDER :
Accused Nos.2 to 5, 7 and 8 in C.C.No.625/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against them in the said case. The allegation against the petitioners is that the first petitioner Company in which petitioners 2 to 6, (Accused Nos. 3 to 5, 7 & 8) function as Managing Director and Whole Time Directors respectively, knowingly infringed the copyright of the de facto complainant/first respondent by enabling the publication of a book of the first accused by name ‘Spain Kalaporinte Nadu’. Thus, the petitioners are alleged to have committed the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
2. The case arose upon a private complaint filed by the first respondent before the learned Magistrate alleging that the first accused published the above book making use of the second accused (first petitioner) Printing and Publishing Company by copying word to word about 58 pages of the travelogues published by the first respondent in October, 2011 in his blog ‘chilayaathrakal.blogspot.com’. It is alleged that the first accused resorted to unscrupulous plagiarism by not caring to
Knowledge of copyright infringement is essential for liability under Section 63 of the Copyright Act; mere allegations without evidence of awareness do not suffice.
Successive acts of copyright infringement provide fresh cause of action; courts exercise quashing powers sparingly, primarily focusing on whether the allegations constitute a cognizable offense.
Offence under Section 63 of Copyright Act is a cognizable and non-bailable offence.
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.
The court ruled that allegations of cheating and copyright infringement were insufficient to constitute criminal offenses, emphasizing the need for evidence of fraudulent intent.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the essential elements of fraudulent or dishonest inducement in the offence of cheating under Section 415 and 420 of the Penal Code.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of valid registration under Section 33 of the Copyright Act for a copyright society to issue a public performance license, and t....
The principle that if one accused is acquitted, the other co-accused cannot be punished was central to the court's decision in quashing the proceedings against the petitioner-A1.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
