The principle that if one accused is acquitted, the other co-accused cannot be punished was central to the court's decision in quashing the proceedings against the petitioner-A1.

ORDER :

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner-A1 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in CC No.488 of 2013 on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B. Nagar, Cyberabad, Hyderabad.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief was that on 10.01.2012 at 11.00 AM, the 2nd respondent lodged a report before the Police, L.B. Nagar Police Station, stating that he was working as a Junior Investigator in the Indian Music Industry (IMI) and the said IMI was having membership of 140 leading music companies. The main object of the IMI was to protect the interest of their member companies from Audio chip piracy. He was given General Power Attorney to conduct survey and to detect audio piracy and to give complaints in the police station for taking necessary action. On 10.01.2012 he conducted survey in the limits of L.B. Nagar Police Station of Cyberabad Commissionerate with the assistance of LWs.2 to 4 and found some of the Mobile Shop owners were indulging in audio chip piracy and named the shops as Sai Sri Communications, Nagole X road, LB Nagar; Sri Laxmi Rasasgnya Mobiles, Nagole X Road, Bandlaguda road; Manikanta Mobiles, Nagole X road, Bandlaguda; Sri Laxmi Communications, near PMR Garden Nagole X road; Dreams Mobiles, Nagole X road and Excel Mobiles, Bandlaguda X road. He stated that the Proprietors and the workers of the above mobile shops were indulging in audio chip piracy and they were undertaking recording of the cinema songs of the choice of customers in the memory cards and were collecting money from them without having any licence or copyright agreement from copyright holder. Basing on the said report, the Inspector of Police, L.B. Nagar, registered a case in Crime No.68 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 63, 51, 68-A, 52-A and 65 of the Copy Right Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’). The police after investigation filed charge sheet against A1 to A10 for the above offences under the Act.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner – A1 was the owner of the Mobile Store in the name and style of “Sai Sri Communications”. His only business was sale and repair of cell phones and he had not indulged in any other activities as alleged. The police filed a charge sheet against the petitioner contending that they went to the petitioner’s shop in the presence of panch witnesses i.e. LWs.5 and 6 and they heard songs being loaded in a memory card by A7. It was also alleged that A7 confessed about his involvement in the offence. The police seized the computers, card recorder and memory cards. The petitioner was no way concerned with the alleged memory cards. The 2nd respondent was not having any locus to lodge the case. The offences alleged would not attract against the petitioner. Without considering any of the said aspects, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner only for statistical purpose to show that they had booked cases of audio piracy. There were no allegations against the petitioner and all the allegations were against A7 only. Apart from that, the film songs were directly available in the internet and hence, the question of petitioner being indulged in any of the offence was not sustainable. There was no incriminating material against the petitioner, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner was nothing but an abuse of process of law and prayed to quash the proceedings.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case was split up against A1 and tried against the other accused as stay was granted by the Court and was extended from time to time. The other accused persons were acquitted on 19.04.2018 vide CC No.49 of 2017. The said judgment also attained finality as the State had not preferred any appeal and relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Pradeep Kumar Tank v. State of U.P.and Another, [(2019 LawSit (All) 516)].

6. Learned Assistan