The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Trademarks Act, 1999 for the registration of FIR, and the inapplicability of cheating under Section 420 IPC to the allegations.

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No. 29 dated 17.02.2009 registered at Police Station Salem Tabri, Ludhiana under Sections 51, 52, 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957 read with Section 420 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 3, complainant Chamkaur Singh was the employer of petitioner No. 1 who was working under him as Manager for five years from the year 2001 to 2006. Petitioner No. 2 was also working as his Distributor and therefore, both the petitioners are known to each other. Respondent No. 3 was running an Ayurvedic Centre and manufacturing Ayurvedic drugs under License No. 573-AY-PB Crl. Misc. No. M-23090 of 2009 2 issued under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 by the Ayurvedic Department of the Government of Punjab.

3. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 left the employment of respondent No. 3 in 2006. Thereafter, he joined Chander Shekhar to set up similar manufacturing of Ayurvedic medicines under license in village and Post Office Kuthar Kalan, District Una under the name and title of M/s Ayushkti Pharma. The said firm applied on 29.12.2007 to the Department of Industries for setting up industry at a cost of ` 15 lacs for manufacturing of Ayurvedic medicines like Churan, Chavanprash, Khamira and Ayurvedic oils etc along with No Objection of the Gram Panchayat of the said village. Permission was granted from the Himachal State Pollution Control Board, Una on 08.01.2008 for setting up the said industrial unit and the Director Ayurveda, Department of Indian System of Medicines and Homeopathy, Himachal Pradesh also started processing the application of M/s Ayushakti Pharma. A certificate of registration was also issued to M/s Ayushakti Pharma on 09.01.2008. This setting up of M/s Ayushakti Pharma, which was in a different state altogether, was not liked by respondent No. 3 who had been trying to convince petitioner No. 1 to come back to his job as a Manager and on coming to know that the unit was likely to start production, threatened petitioner No. 1 that he would get him implicated in a false case. Similarly, petitioner No. 2 had also stopped working with the complainant and was in touch with petitioner No. 1 who wanted to utilize his services as a Distributor and thus, the complainant was also aggrieved against him as well.

4. While praying for quashing of FIR, learned counsel for the petitioners raised his first argument that a plain reading of the FIR would show that no offence is made out under the Copyright Act, 1957 as the object and reasons of the Copyright Act provide that the Act is applicable to work of art which can be dramatic in nature or literary musical or work of Architecture, painting or sculpture etc.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 did not dispute the fact and rather admitted that the offence did not fall under the Copyright Act, 1957 . Thus, it is evident that the Copyright Act, 1957 is not applicable to the manufacture of any Ayurvedic medicines and the provisions of said Act had been wrongly invoked. The Act not being applicable, no offence is made out under the Copyright Act, 1957 .

6. FIR is also registered under the Trademark Act. Section 115 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 is reproduced below :-

"115. Cognizance of certain offences and the powers of police officer for search and seizure:-

(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence under Section 107 or Section 108 or Section 109 except on complaint in writing made by the Registrar or any officer authorized by him in writing.

Provided that in relation to clause (c) of subsection (1) of Section 107, a Court shall take cognizance of an offence on the basis of a certificate issued by the Registrar in respect of any goods or services in respect of which it is not in fact registered.

(2) No court inferior to that of Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the fi