HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6051/2019
Surendra Jain S/o Shri Sampat Lal Jain, Aged About 50 Years,
R/o House No.36, Surendra Pal Singh Colony, Shyam Nagar,
Jaipur, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G. D. Bansal, Adv. with Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order ORDER RESERVED ON :: 08/04/2022 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 13 /04/2022 The instant criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the accused petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No.492/2018 registered at Police Station Bhankhrota, Jaipur (West) for the offence under Sections 420, 120-B IPC and Sections 51, 52-A, 63 and 68(a) of Copyright Act, 1957.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Sub Inspector has no right to lodge the FIR against the petitioner under Sections 420, 120-B IPC and Sections 51, 52-A, 63 and 68(a) of Copyright Act, 1957. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no owner of the Copyright informed the complainant Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Sub Inspector about (Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:27:38 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6051/2019] violation/infringement of their Copyrights. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that offence under Section 52-A is relating to sound recording and others not relative to the present FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per offence under Section 63 of Copyright Act, maximum punishment of 3 years. So, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Sub Inspector has not authorized to file the FIR in this matter. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Sub Inspector had to get permission from the concerned Court for lodging of the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as per contention of the complainant is that the petitioner has falsely copied the label of the Hindustan Petroleum and Bharat Petroleum but as per the statement of the Officers of the Hindustan Petroleum and Bharat Petroleum, offence against the petitioner is not made out. So, the present FIR against the petitioner be quashed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-(1) Pintu Dey Vs. State Of Rajasthan & Anr. in S. B. Criminal Mis. Petition No.2786/2012 decided on 09.04.2015;(2) Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs. State Of U.P. & Another in Application U/S 482 No.36626/2018 decided on 15.11.2018;(3) Maroti and Other Vs. The State Of Maharashtra and Others in Criminal Application No.1883/2018 decided on 25.09.2018 and (4) Vijaya Prakash Vyas Vs. State Of A.P. in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.3567/2006 decided on 19.12.2006.
(Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:27:38 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-6051/2019] Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is engaged in making duplicate grease oil in the brand name of Racy and petitioner had not submitted any license or authorization during investigation. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the complainant had received information that the petitioner is engaged in making adulterated oil and huge quantity of Oil Drums etc. were recovered during search. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the petitioner can take all the arguments during the time of charge. So, the petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.
It is an admitted position that the petitioner was engaged in making adulterated Grease Oil etc. A huge Quantity of Grease Oil were recovered at the time of search. It is also admitted position that the petitioner had no authority for making oil and grease etc. So, in my considered opinion, at this stage, no ground for quashment of the FIR is made out. So, the present petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
Hence, this Criminal Miscellaneous petition stands dismissed. However, petitioner would be at liberty to raise all the objections at the time of arguments of the charge.
Stay application also stands disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/33 (Downloaded on 13/04/2022 at 09:27:38 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)