JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the C.C.No.47 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Hosur and quash the same.)

1. The present Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 to call for the records relating to the C.C.No.47 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Hosur and quash the same.

2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was working with M/s Sun Apparel Exports, as General Manager for the period from 01.05.2014 to 31.05.2015 and was relieved from the company in the month of June, 2015. The 2nd respondent, is the defacto complainant, who is authorized by M/s Madura Fashion and Lifestyle, a Division of M/s Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited to give complaint against people or establishments who are involved in infringing Copyright and Registered Trade mark. The said company are branded licensees, engaged in the manufacturing of popular brands viz., Van Heusen, Louis Philippe, Allen Solly, Peter England etc.,

3. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is that the management of the Sun Apparel Exports functioning at Krishnagiri District are involved in the manufacture of the above said branded duplicate shirts and trousers and are selling the same in the open market, thereby caused heavy loss to the company, apart from infringing provisions of the Copy Right Act. Therefore the 2nd respondent had lodged a complaint against Sun Apparel Exports for offences punishable under Section 51 read with Section 63 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 and FIR has been registered in Crime No.118 of 2015 and the same was culminated into C.C.No.47 of 2016.

4. According to the petitioner, he is no way connected with the affairs of the Management of M/s Sun Apparel Exports and was only working as a General Manager. The respondents in order to victimise the petitioner had registered a false case against the petitioner and taken steps to implicate the management of the Sun Apparel Exports. In fact, the task of the petitioner is only to complete the orders of the management and no way related to the procurement of material, as alleged. Further, the said company is a partnership concern in which Ms.Sasikala and Ms.Asma bee are the partners and the petitioner is not even incharge or an employee at the point when the alleged offence is said to have been committed. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner and the entire transaction with respect to the goods was done in a legal manner by the management of the Sun Apparel Exports. Without conducting preliminary enquiry, the 1st respondent had mechanically registered the FIR in Crime No.118 of 2015 against the petitioner and the same was taken on file and the case is pending in C.C.No.118 of 2015. Seeking to quash the same, the petitioner has filed this petition.

5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegations in the complaint are baseless and misconceived and the defacto complainant has intentionally given a false complaints. The ingredients of the various offences are not made out and the provisions of the Copy Right Act, 1957 have been invoked in a misconceived manner.

6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the prosecution is bound to explain as to how the Copyright has been infringed and the petitioner is entitled to protection and would not constitute an infringement. Further, the defacto complainant has to show prima facie material that the names or logos as claimed by them are entitled to protection under the Designs Act, since even according to their own statement of being well known brands, the same loses its right to protection after industrial application.

7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the cognizance of the complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same does not disclose the commission of an offence and make out a case against the accused, who was