ORDER

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

"a). To quash the entire proceedings in FIR No. 18/2018 against the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under section 420 read with 34 of IPC and 51, 63B of Copyright Act 1957, pending on the file of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Bengaluru;

b) And pass such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."

2. Respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint with the 1st respondent-police alleging that the petitioners are indulging in illegal activities of usage/ storage/ download etc., of graphic designing/ printing/

jewelry/ computer aided designing/ file condensing and file resizing and various other software for the last one year without a genuine or a proper licence causing huge monetary loss to the complainant. On which basis, Crime No.18/2018 came to be registered by the Sampangiramanagar Police Station for the offences under Sections 63B and 51 of Copy Right Act, 1957 and Sections 420 read with 34 of IPC, challenging the said FIR, the petitioners are before this Court in this petition.

3. Sri Akki Manjunath Gowda K., learned counsel for petitioners submits that complaint has been filed by the Power of Attorney holder and not by any owner of the software and as such, the complaint is not maintainable; (2) that the complaint has been filed only to get the petitioners to negotiating table to make the petitioners to purchase software from the complainant; (3) that the Company of which the Power of Attorney holders are the directors has been struck off from the Registrar of Companies and the Directors Identification Number (DIN Number) issued in their favour have been cancelled in the year 2015 until 2021. The complaint has been filed on 15-2-2018 which was during the period when DIN number has remained cancelled and as such, the complaint could not be taken on record and on the above basis, he submits that the FIR which has been registered is required to be quashed.

4. Heard Sri Akki Manjunatha Gowda, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Channappa Erappa, learned HCGP for 1st respondent. 2nd respondent served and unrepresented and perused the papers.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of NIRAV DANISHKUMAR SHAH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA in W.P.NO.1920/2015 DATED 09-02-2018 to contend that the complainant had indulged in business of registration of offence and as such, the same is an abuse of the process of Court. Paras 9 and 10 thereof are reproduced herein as under:

9. "Thus, after going through the complaint search, panchanama, the first remand report, we hold that the police machinery has been set into motion by the complainant as its business, to ensure that the petitioners are brought to the negotiation table and further to ensure that the petitioners either purchase the Software or pay license fees, and/or damages to the complainant. Thus, the law has been set into motion to make gains by the Agents with the active help of police.

10. We have also perused the investigation papers. The material collected in the investigation even otherwise does not make out the case for registering the offences under Sections 292, 353, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. No doubt, the offences registered under the Copyright Act are of a serious nature but the manner and the process which has been undertaken or registering the offences is not sustainable in law. The facts of the case clearly indicate that the complainant and the police indulged into activity, much less 'business of registration of offence' which family results into financial gains to the complainant, which in our view is 'Abuse of Process of Law'."

6. The said judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court being persuasive in nature. I am not persuaded by the said judgment in as much as this Court would have to take into ac