IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.12.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Crl.O.P.Nos.18407 of 2013 & 1479 of 2014 and Crl.M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2013 and 2 of 2014

1.Ashwin

2.Ashok .... Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.18407 of 2013

1.Sony Music Entertainment India Pvt., Ltd., Rep., by its Director, Mr.Sumit Chatterjee, No.12, Vaibhav Building Basement, Smith Road, Off. Mount Road, Chennai.

2.Mr.Sumit Chatterjee .... Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.1479 of 2014 vs M/s.R.K.Productions Pvt. Ltd., Rep., by its Authorised Signatory, Mr.Manikantan Having its Office at No.16/5, Rajamannar Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 17 .... Respondent in both cases.

Prayer in both the cases: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.2818 of 2013 on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and quash the said complaint.

For Petitioner : Mr.Sunder Mohan ( in Crl.O.P.No.18407 of 2013)

: Mr.Anand Sashidharan ( in Crl.O.P.No.1479 of 2014)

For Respondent :Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi (in both cases)

COMMON ORDER

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to call for the records in C.C.No.2818 of 2013, on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and quash the same.

2 The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.1479 of 2014 are the first and second accused and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.18407 of 2013 are arrayed as third and fourth accused.

3 The respondent herein filed a private complaint before the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, against these petitioners for the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 r/w 120-B and 34 IPC. The learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, has taken cognizance of the complaint in C.C.No.2818 of 2013 and issued summons to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the cognizance and issuance of proceedings, the petitioners/accused have approached this Court seeking to quash the same by invoking Section

482 Cr.P.C.

4 The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is an assignment agreement between the parties and as per the terms of the copyright agreement, there is no infringement, even Section 14 of the Copyright Act 1957, has clearly defined what is infringement. The petitioners have not infringed any rights assigned to these petitioners. In the assignment of copyrights agreement, they were given all the rights including translation from Tamil to other languages. Once entire rights assigned to these petitioners, it is for the petitioners to decide their works. Even otherwise, they can approach the appropriate authority under Section 19(A) of the Copyrights Act. The petitioners have not committed any offence under Section 63 of Copyrights Act. Even the complainant can approach Civil Court by filing suit for infringement. Once, the dispute is civil in nature, the Magistrate has no power to take cognizance of the complaint. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar Das Jain Vs. Krishna Charan Chakraborti and another reported in (1989) 4 SCC 531. Further, A3 and A4 are the directors of the company and they are not vicariously liable, because, they are only the employees of the company. They are not liable to be prosecuted for any offence or any infringement as alleged by the respondent. The petitioners need not face the ordial of trial and there is no prima facie case made out against these petitioners. The learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the complaint against the petitioners, which warrants interference by this Court.

5 The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that, as per the averments in the terms sheet, the rights have been assigned only to translate from Tamil to Telugu alone and not to Hindi or any other languages. The assignment deed does not speak about the right to translate in Hindi or any other langua