The petitioners, who are accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.141 of 2005 on the file of the first respondent herein, have filed the above Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash all further proceedings therein.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the above Criminal Original Petition are set out below:

The de facto complainant, the second respondent herein, preferred a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vaniambadi, stating that he resides at Mottur Village and having his business at Kalasipalayam, Bangalore, The complainant claims that he had invented ‘mild steel tubes’ to be used in bore wells having specific dimensions between 168.4 mm to 193.6 mm. He had applied for registration with the Registrar of Patents as well to the Copyright Registry. In the year 2003, the Copyright Authorities have given two Certificates of Registration, i.e., for the engineering drawings of the said Kesavalu Naidu for 175 mm and 180 mm O.D.M.S. Pipe vide its Registration Nos. 65629 of 2003 and 65630 of 2003 respectively. The further averment is that the pipes manufactured by him had the monogram “GKT” and the monogram has been submitted to the Trademark Registry for ‘registration. While the matter stood there, he heard the news that some other companies are manufacturing and Marketing MS tubes without the logo “GKT” with the inferior quality of steel and by appearance, the same were similar to the pipes manufactured by him. Later, he came to know a company, viz., Calcutta Tubes India Ltd., at Bangalore was manufacturing and marketing the pipes. Because of the marketing of the pipes manufactured by Calcutta Tube India Ltd., he suffered ‘loss’ as rig owners and the operators were using the mild steel tubes manufactured and marketed by Calcutta Tube India Ltd.,

3. In the complaint it is alleged that Calcutta Tube India Limited, is cheating many dealers in pipes, which resulted in lesser sales of product of the complainant and which resulted loss to the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant is having exclusive proprietary rights over the said invention and he is the Copy Right Owner of the Engineering Drawings filed along with the said Patent applications for the above said invention, because of its specific “Artistic work” under the Copy Right Act, 1957 (14 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) which includes drawings namely industrial and engineering drawings. It is further alleged that the accused have violated the provisions of Sections 51 and 62 of the Act, which is punishable under Section 63 of the Act. It is also alleged that Calcutta Tube India Limited and the accused have cheated the innocent Rig owners and committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and under Section 63 of the Act. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., to the first respondent and the first respondent has registered a case in Crime No.141 of 2005 for the offence under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and under Section 63 of the Act.

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

5. Mr. A. Ramesh learned senior, counsel for Ram and Ram appearing for the petitioners has made the following submissions:

(a) The de facto complainant claims that he had a Copyright over said to have been invented by him. No one can own a copyright for the ‘design’ or ‘Shape’ of any object or article Copyright would be applicable only to literary, dramatic, musical or ‘artistic’ work Section 2(m)(i) of the Act defines; infringing, copy’ and the same reads a follows:

“2(m)(i) “infringing copy” means-

In relation to literary, dramatic, musical or artistic, work, a reproduction thereof otherwise than in the form of a cinematographic film.”

According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners from a bare perusal of the above provisions it is clear that the de facto complainant cannot have any copyright over the dimension or design of the Mild Steel tubes and the copy of the extra