ORAL ORDER:

Accused No.1 in C.C.No.509 of 2016 on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, filed the present criminal petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings against him in the said case.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.03.2013, one Gurdeep Singh, who was working as an investigator in M/s. Pinkerton Consulting and Investigations India Private Limited, lodged a report before Surya Rao Pet Police Station, Vijayawada, stating that the proprietors of M/s. Sri Gayatri Automotives and M/s. Vasavi Enterprises of Surya Rao Pet have been marketing and selling spurious automobile spare parts in the name of M/s. Mobis India Limited, without having any copyrights, and, thereby, cheating the general public, besides tarnishing the image and reputation of M/s. Mobis India Limited, and therefore, requested the police to enquire and take necessary action. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.69 of 2013 has been registered on the file of Surya Rao Pet Police Station, Vijayawada, and investigation was taken up. The Investigating Officer visited the above two outlets and seized the alleged infringed material in the presence of mediators under cover of mediators report and forwarded the same to Forensic Science Laboratory for necessary analysis and comparison. After

2 KSR,J receipt of FSL report and completion of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Surya Rao Pet Police Station, filed a charge sheet against the petitioner/accused No.1 and accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 I.P.C. and Sections 63, 51 and 65 of Copyright Act, 1957. The trial Court took cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused and the case was numbered as C.C.No.509 of 2016. Seeking to quash the proceedings against him in the said C.C., the petitioner/accused No.1 filed the present criminal petition.

3. While admitting this criminal petition on 22.11.2016, this Court granted stay of all further proceedings in the subject C.C. and the same has been extended from time to time. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the proceedings in the subject C.C. are still pending.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no copyright subsists in automobile spare parts and, as such, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner are misconceived. In support of his contention, he relies on the decision of the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Bikaner Steel Mills v. State of Punjab reported in 2006 SCC OnLine P&H 1097. He further submits that the allegations made in the report do not satisfy the ingredients of Section 420 I.P.C., as there is no material to show that the petitioner has cheated the general public by making false representation about the alleged spare parts. He, therefore, prays for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1.

3 KSR,J

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would fairly concede that no copyright subsists in automobile spare parts.

6. This Court has perused the entire material available on record. As can be seen from the case of the prosecution, the allegation against the petitioner/accused No.1 and accused No.2 is that they indulged themselves in marketing and sale of duplicate automobile spare parts and thereby, cheated the general public. It is to be noted that as per Section 13 of the Copyright Act, copyright shall subsist in original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, cinematograph films and sound recording. In the instant case, the allegation does not pertain to infringement in respect of any of the above and the allegation relates to sale of duplicate automobile spare parts. In similar fact situation, in Bikaner Steel Mills (supra), the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, while dealing with a petition filed for quashing of criminal proceedings registered inter alia for the offences under the Copyright Act, observed that no copyright subsists