C O M M O N O R D E R

The Petitioners who are Accused No.1 and Accused No.5 in Crime No.33 of 2015, dated 08.04.2015, on the file of the 1st respondent and they have filed these Criminal Original Petitions seeking to quash the proceedings.

2.The brief facts of the case as per the defacto complainant viz., K.Boopathi, the 2nd respondent in these cases, is that his father viz., G.Kesavalu Naidu @ Kesavan, was engaged in the business of digging bore wells and he passed away on 15.10.2014 and after his demise, the de facto complainant is taking care of his business and also the cases which were run by him. The de facto complainant's father in the course of his business of digging bore wells had invented a different process and he had applied for registration of Copyright before the Copyrights Office at Chennai. The Copyright was published in the Government Gazette vide No.441/ MAS/ 1999, 836/ MAS/ 2000 and 097/ MAS/ 2001.

3.In order to give the effect to the invention, his father had approached manufacturers and owners of pipe manufacturing companies and he entered into an agreement that one Binjarajaka Steel Tubes Limited at Secundarabad. He had also applied for getting his Trademark of “G.K.T” registered at the Office of the Registrar of Trademarks and he had also obtained a certificate for the same. While so, he came to understand that one Sri Lakshmi Mettal Udyog Limited and some other companies in violation of the Provisions of the Copyright Act, had manufactured duplicate pipes and sold them at Bangalore, Coimbatore, Hosur and Vaniyampadi and thereby, his father had preferred complaints against the violators based on which, cases in Crime Nos.139 of 2005 and 140 of 2005 were registered by the 1st respondent police against the petitioners.

4.The offenders/violators in Crime Nos.139 of 2005 and 140 of

2005 had individually approached this Court and filed petitions in Crl.O.P.Nos.17500/2008 and 17503/2008 and obtained stay orders and thereby, the proper investigation could not be done. On 28.10.2014, this Court had dismissed the petitions and had directed the 1st respondent police to complete the full-fledged enquiry and had also directed to submit the report of the investigation before this Court on or before 31.03.2015. While that was so, two other companies viz., “Apollo Tubes Limited, Hosur” and Calcutta Tubes India (P) Limited, Banglore” and its Chairman and Directors have misused the invention of the de facto complainant and had in order to cause wrongful loss to the de facto complainant had manufactured and sold duplicate pipes, by appointing authorised dealers and one such dealer Naaz Enterprises had sold the pipes to one Mahesh, a rig owner by Bill No.082, dated 16.10.2014. The de facto complainant personally enquired and found it to be true and he had preferred the complaint against them for violating Sections 51& 63 of the Copyrights Act. Based on the complaint, a case was registered by the 1st respondent in Crime No.33 of 2015, for the offence under Sections 468, 471, 480, 420 IPC and Sections 51, 63, 65(A) of the Copyright Act, 1957, against the companies and its officials. The present petitions have been filed by the A1 and A5 to quash the FIR in Crime No.33 of 2015.

5.Heard Mr.A.Ramesh, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/A1 and Mr.Mani Shankar, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/A5.

6.Mr.A.Ramesh, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st petitioner /A1 would submit that at the outset, the entire proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The de facto complainant, on the date of complaint was not having any rights either Copyright or the patent right in respect of the tubes as claimed by him. The de facto complainant had suppressed the same and the FIR itself has to be quashed on the ground of suppression of material facts. The learned senior counsel would submit that the fact remains that the father of the defacto complainant had earlier preferred a complaint which was registered i