ORDER :

B. Pugalendhi, J.

1. Both these criminal original petitions have been filed challenging the complaint in C.C. No. 2067 of 2011, on the file of the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai - 8 and to quash the same.

2. The case in C.C. No. 2067 of 2011 was filed by the 1st respondent herein as against these petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 63 of the Copy Right Act and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the same was filed by way of a private complaint and the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate satisfied that there exists prima facie case has taken the complaint on file and the same is pending as against these petitioners.

3. The case of the first respondent in his'-complaint in C.C. No. 2067 of 2011 is that he is a Tamil Writer and he has written many short stories, novels and poems. One such short story written by the complainant by name 'Jugiba' was published in a Tamil monthly magazine namely 'Iniya Udhayam' in April, 1996. The same story was again published in another book namely 'Thik Thik Deepika' in the year 2007. Alleging that the subject film, namely, Enthiran was directed by the 1st accused by using the complainant's work in Jugiba, he has filed a suit in CS No. 914 of 2010 seeking a declaration that the complainant is the author and first owner of the copy right of the story Enthiran and also for a declaration that the film Enthiran is the infringing copy of the complainant's story Jugiba.-According to the -1st respondent/complainant the film Enthiran directed by the 1st accused and produced by the 2nd accused is a pirated story of his work Jugiba and through the film, the accused have earned huge profit and hence, the accused have committed the offence punishable under Sections 63 of the Copy Right Act and 420 IPC.

4. Since the issue involved in both the petitions are one and the same, both the petitions are heard together and are disposed of by way of this common order. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are being referred to as per their ranks before the Court below.

5. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. P. Wilson appearing for the 1st accused has raised the following points in support of his case.

(i) The allegations levelled by the complainant are baseless and there is no similarity between the story Jugiba and the film Enthiran.

(ii) The concept of humanoid robots may be same, but, in fact, there are several movies in the past, which had described humanoid robots. The Director of the film being a Diploma Engineer had developed the story of Enthiran for several years.

(iii) The story of film Enthiran and Jugiba are entirely different. The Robot in the movie Enthiran does not commit suicide; it resembles its creator; it was created for serving in Army; it does not have any feelings initially and with great difficulty, the scientist brought the feelings in it; it has been loaded with destruction software chip by a rival scientist, subsequently the same was removed and finally, the robot did not commit suicide, but was dismantled and kept in a Museum. Whereas, as per the story Jugiba, the scientist had not created the Robot for any military purpose and in the end of the story, the Robot committed suicide. Therefore, there is no similarity between his film Enthiran and the story Jugiba.

(iv) The first respondent has filed this complaint before the Magistrate Court after he became unsuccessful in obtaining any interim order in CS No. 914 of 2010, it will be apparent that the 1st respondent himself has knocked at the doors of the Court under Section 17 of Copy Right Act, 1957 and sought for a declaration to declare him as the first author of the film Enthiran and also for other consequential reliefs and without a declaration that he is the first author, the complaint cannot be maintained.

(v) Section 63 of the Copy Right Act can be invoked, only when there is infringement