The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish the ingredients of the penal sections of the Indian Penal Code and the limitations and applicability of the Trademarks Act, Copy Right Act, and Information Technology Act.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ravi Prakash, the learned counsel for the State and Mr. Rishikesh Giri, the learned counsel for the respondent opposite party no. 2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 20.02.2019 in connection with Cyber Crime P.S. Case No. 04/2018, pending in the court of the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Ranchi.

3. The FIR was lodged on the basis of a complaint to the S.P. Cyber Crime Branch, Ranchi by one Perfetti Van Melle India Private Limited, represented by its purported power of attorney holder Mr. Anand Tiwary, the offending act in the complaint is under the heading infringing activities. It was further alleged that an unknown person has without any permission/consent of the company used clip of the Mentos advertisement and a song of well known Hindi movie whereby they have sought to demean and denigrate the Hon’ble and respectable Chief Minister and other political dignitaries of the State of Jharkhand. The said video has been tweeted from twitter handle account @ madeinranchi. It was also alleged that the informant's/complaint’s right under Trademarks Act and Copy Right Act has been infringed.

4. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on the allegation of being user of the twitter handle account on 03.04.2018 itself. Eventually, he was granted regular bail on 10.04.2018 by the court below. His mobile phone which was seized was released by order dated 24.05.2018. He further submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 500 and 505 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 63 of the Copy Right Act, under Sections 103 and 105 of the Trademark Act and under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. He also submits that the cognizance has been taken without examining whether the ingredients are made out against the petitioner or not. He further submits that in absence of any legal evidence, the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner. He further elaborated his argument by way of submitting that it has been alleged that the petitioner has uploaded a video in his twitter account on 01.04.2018 in which the Chief Minister of Jharkhand was shown, mixing the same with a song of Hindi film and advertisement of Mentos. He also submits that the video was uploaded in a lighter sense on 01.04.2018. There was nothing to harm the reputation of any higher. He further submits that the said video was not meant for any commercial purpose and admittedly the product has not been used for business or advertisement purpose and accordingly there is no ingredient under Section 63 of the Copy Right Act, Sections 103 and 105 of the Trademark Act and Section 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act against the petitioner. He further draws attention of the Court to the supplementary affidavit wherein the case diary has been annexed and by way of referring the statement of one Pratyush Kumar Guha, he submits that he has only stated that he has asked the informant to lodge the FIR. On this ground, he submits that it is a case of malicious prosecution and no ingredient is made out against the petitioner and this Court is competent to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance.

5. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the State submits that there are ingredients of the said sections and therefore the learned court has rightly taken the cognizance. He further submits that the petitioner has admitted before the police about release of the said video and the investigating agency has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner.

6. Mr. Rishikesh Giri, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 supported the contents of the FIR. He further submits that the petitio