SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Parmindersingh Ashok Grover And … vs The State Of Mah And Anr on 8 June, 2018

1 Application 2478 of 2007


Criminal Application No.2478 of 2007

1) Parmindersingh s/o Ashok Grover,
Age 37 years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o 22, Samarth Nagar, “Mother Gift”,
Opposite Tilak Nagar, Aurangabad,
Taluka District Aurangabad.

2) Armindersingh s/o Ashok Grover,
Age 35 years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o As above. .. Applicants.


1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Police Inspector,
Mukundwadi Police Station,
Taluka and District Aurangabad.

2) Padamshil s/o Ramchandra Dhale,
Age 31 years,
Occupation: Legal Practice,
R/o “Sahas Homes”,
Beside Janki Hotel,
Near Petrol Pump,
Garkheda, Aurangabad,
Taluka and District Aurangabad. .. Respondents.


Shri. Rajendra Deshmukh, Advocate, for applicants.

Shri. S.B. Pulkundwar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for
respondent No.1.


::: Uploaded on – 12/06/2018 13/06/2018 00:57:07 :::
2 Application 2478 of 2007


Date: 8 JUNE 2018

JUDGMENT (By T.V. Nalawade, J.):

1) The proceeding is filed under section 482 of

Code of Criminal Procedure for the relief of quashing of

F.I.R. No.I-95/2007 registered in Mukundwadi Police

Station, Aurangabad for offences punishable under

sections 420, 406 read with 34 of Indian Pena Code and

Sections 51, 63, 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Both the

sides are heard.

2) The F.I.R. is given by respondent No.2. He has

made allegation that the present applicant contravened

the provisions of the aforesaid special legislation and

when he had not given licence to the applicants under the

provisions of the Copyright Act, the applicants published

his creature, book by using the name of other author and

by changing the title of the book. The respondent No.2

had written a book on J.M.F.C. Service Examination and he

had written one more book containing essays etc. which

::: Uploaded on – 12/06/2018 13/06/2018 00:57:07 :::
3 Application 2478 of 2007

could have been used for the same examination. Copyright

was given to the applicants to publish an edition as

mentioned in the agreement. It is his case that without

seeking his permission the applicants published second

edition and for that the consideration was not paid and

further the name of the author was different and the title

was also changed.

3) Copy of the agreement is produced on the

record and it shows that the respondent No.2 had agreed

to allow the applicants to publish the books and for the

first 1100 prints the consideration of Rs.15,000 was to be

given and then more consideration of Rs.10,000 was to be

given for the 2nd Edition. Though the wording is not clear,

prima facie it can be inferred that for further prints the

consideration of Rs.10,000 was given and the prints would

be of similar quantity. Allegation is made that even in

respect of the first edition the agreed consideration was

not given and in respect of the second edition no

consideration at all was given.

::: Uploaded on – 12/06/2018 13/06/2018 00:57:07 :::

4 Application 2478 of 2007

4) The learned counsel for the applicants,

publisher, submitted that the dispute is of civil nature and

police could not have taken cognizance of the breach of

contract. He submitted that offence punishable under

sections 420 and 406 IPC was not committed but the

crime is registered for those offences also and the act of

the applicants does not fall under any of the provisions of

the Copyright Act in view of the existence of the


5) Both the aforesaid contentions of the applicants

are not acceptable. Firstly, even if there was agreement,

as per provisions of sections 51, 63 and 64 of Copyright

Act, only after getting licence, permission from the author,

the applicants could have published the next edition.

There is correspondence showing that the author was in

service for some time in subordinate judiciary and he had

obtained permission of the High Court also for publishing

his book. After that he had contacted the applicants but

the applicants had expressed that the applicants were not

willing to publish new edition as there was no demand for

the books in the market. After that, admittedly the

::: Uploaded on – 12/06/2018 13/06/2018 00:57:07 :::
5 Application 2478 of 2007

applicants published the next edition. This shows nothing

but intention to make wrongful gain of the applicants.

Even when permission was not granted by the respondent

No.2, the next edition was published and money was

made. Apparently, such activity falls under section 406

IPC also in addition to aforesaid provision of the Copyright

Act. There is deeming provision in the aforesaid provision

of Copyright Act. The aforesaid material and the

contentions show that there was infringement of copy


6) Learned counsel for the applicants placed

reliance on some observations made by Rajasthan High

Court in Criminal Misc. Petition No.2499/2017

(Mahendra Bhati v. The State of Rajasthan) and

submitted that considering the punishment provided for

the offences under the Copyright Act, there was no power

to police to make investigation. This Court has carefully

gone through the scheme of the Act. In the scheme of the

Act itself power is given to police of seizure when there is

infringement of copyright. The provision made for trial

shows that it is specifically provided that such cases can

::: Uploaded on – 12/06/2018 13/06/2018 00:57:07 :::
6 Application 2478 of 2007

be tried only by Judicial Magistrate First Class (not by

Magistrate of Second Class). There is no provision in the

special legislation making it compulsory to file private

complaint in the matter when there is other provision

enabling police to make the seizure even without warrant.

In the same section procedure is given of having redressal

to grievance if there is such seizure and in that case the

Magistrate can make inquiry. In any case, the crime is

registered for other offences like sections 420, 406 of

Indian Penal Code and there is material of aforesaid

nature to make out prima case at least for both these

offences. In view of these circumstances, it cannot be said

that there is no prima facie case and there was no power

with police to make investigation.

7) The learned counsel for the applicants placed

reliance on some observations made by the Apex Court in

the case reported as AIR 2009 SC 59 (V.Y. Jose v. State of

Gujarat). In this case, the Apex Court has discussed the

ingredients of section 420 IPC and it is observed by the

Apex Court that the ingredients for offence punishable

under section 420 of IPC need to be made out and if they

::: Uploaded on – 12/06/2018 13/06/2018 00:57:07 :::
7 Application 2478 of 2007

are not made out, power given under section 482 Cr.P.C.

can be used. This Court has already mentioned the

relevant material of the present matter and that shows

that there was dishonest intention on the part of the

applicants and probably they tried to misuse the

circumstance that the respondent No.2 had joined the

judiciary and they published the book by showing the

name of other author. In the result, the application stands

dismissed. Interim relief is vacated. Rule is discharged.

Sd/- Sd/-


::: Uploaded on – 12/06/2018 13/06/2018 00:57:07 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation