Madras High Court
T.B.Velu vs The State on 16 November, 2021
Crl.O.P.No.12211 of 2017 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.7982 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 16.11.2021
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No. 12211 of 2017 &
Crl.M.P.No.7982 of 2017
1. T.B.Velu
2. B.Mani
3. B.Sankar ...Petitioners
Vs
1. The State
rep. by its Station House Officer,
Vellore Police Station,
Video Piracy Cell – CID,
Vellore District.
(F.I.R. No.224 of 2017)
2. S.Siva Kumar ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records of the proceedings in F.I.R. No.225 of
2017 on the file of the Video Piracy Cell-CID, Vellore Police, Vellore District and
to quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.
Page 1 / 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.12211 of 2017 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.7982 of 2017
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Raghavachari
For Respondents : R1 - Mr.R.Kishore Kumar,
Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
R2 – Notice served,
Service awaited.
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report on the file
of the Video Piracy Cell CID, Vellore Police, Vellore District for the offences
under sections 51 and 63(a) of the Copy Rights Act, 1957 and Section 7 [1] [a] [i]
of Cinematograph Act, 1952.
2. The crux of the First Information Report is as follows :
The accused, who is the owner of the theatre known as M/s.Chellam
Paradise has released the movie 'Kadamban' on 14.04.2017. The defacto
complainant was working as an Assistant to the Secretary of the Tamilnadu Film
Producers Council. He has received an information that the accused have
stealthily copied the movie and thereafter took video of the same. In this regard,
Page 2 / 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.12211 of 2017 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.7982 of 2017
Wunderbar Films [P] Ltd. had given a complaint. Based on the above complaint,
the prosecution has been launched for the above said offences.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
First Information Report has been registered only on the basis of a hear say
information and there is no material available on record to show that the defacto
complainant is the copy right owner of the said film. Further, invoking provisions
of Section 7[1] of the Cinematograph Act is totally misconceived. It is nobody's
case that film released in the theatre has not been certified. Therefore, the
question of committing an offence under section 7 [1] [i] of the Cinematograph
Act does not arise at all. Similarly, absolutely there is no materials to show that
the accused has copied the film in a video tape and the entire complaint is based
on a hear say information. Therefore, the First Information Report is nothing but
motivated and continuing the same is an abuse of process of law.
4. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the First
Information Report has been launched based on the information received from the
defacto complainant about copying of the film in a video tape. Hence, the First
Page 3 / 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.12211 of 2017 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.7982 of 2017
Information Report disclose prima facie allegation to proceed against the accused
and hence, the First Information Report cannot be quashed.
5. It is to be noted that the First Information Report has been filed under
Sections 51 and 63(a) of the Copy Rights Act, 1957 and Section 7 [1] [a] [i] of
Cinematograph Act, 1952. At the outset, on a perusal of the records, this Court is
of the view that filing of the First Information Report under section 7 [1] [a] [i] of
Cinematograph Act is nothing but futile exercise. It is no body's case that the so
called film released in the theatre which is restricted for public exhibition or for
public exhibition restricted to adults as contemplated under section 7 [1] [a] [i] of
Cinematograph Act. Therefore, filing of a First Information Report under section
7 [1] [a] [i] of Cinematograph Act is totally misconceived and cannot be continued
and it is nothing but total waste of time.
6. As far as offences under sections 51 and 63(a) of the Copy Rights Act,
1957 are concerned, it is the contention of the prosecution that the accused has
infringed the copy right of the film. It is to be noted that neither the defacto
complainant nor the producer council is the owner of the film. When Section 63
Page 4 / 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.12211 of 2017 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.7982 of 2017
of the Copy Right Act carefully seen, it is seen that any person who knowingly
infringes or abets the infringement of the copyright in a work, or any other right
conferred by this Act, except the right conferred by section 53A shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months
but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than
fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees. From the above
section, it is clear that owner is the author of the work. In this regard, it is relevant
to refer the judgment in Nagin Chand Jain Vs. State of U.P. reported in SCC
OnLine All 653. The above judgment makes it clear that the author or assignee
or licensee alone is entitled to maintain a criminal action under section of 63 of the
Copy Right Act for protection of the copy right of the work.
7. Admittedly, in this case, the defacto complainant is not falling in any of
the category either as an author, assignee or licensee. Therefore, lodging of a
complaint itself is not correct by a third party who is no way connected with the
film. Apart from that, it is seen from the entire allegations in the First Information
Report that the defacto complainant has no direct knowledge about the allegations
and the entire allegation is only a hear say information. The defacto complainant
Page 5 / 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.12211 of 2017 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.7982 of 2017
has no direct knowledge about the so called violation of the copy rights of the
film. Therefore, when the allegations are based on a hear say information and he
is no way connected with the film in any manner, prosecution under sections 51
and 63(a) of the Copy Rights Act, 1957 is nothing but a futile exercise.
8. Similarly, prosecution under section 7 [1] [a] [i] of Cinematograph Act is
also not maintainable since it is not the case of the prosecution that the so called
film has not been certified so as to attract the offence under section 7 [1] [a] [i] of
Cinematograph Act. In the above circumferences, continuing the prosecution
against the petitioner is sheer waste of time and in fact it will infringe the right of
the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the First
Information Report in Crime No.225 of 2017 on the file of Video Piracy Cell CID,
Vellore Police, Vellore District is quashed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.11.2021
vrc/kbs
Page 6 / 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.12211 of 2017 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.7982 of 2017
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
Speaking Order
To
1. The Video Piracy Cell-CID,
Vellore Police, Vellore District.
2. The Station House Officer,
Vellore Police Station,
Video Piracy Cell – CID,
Vellore District.
Page 7 / 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.12211 of 2017 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.7982 of 2017
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc/kbs
Crl.O.P.No.12211 of 2017 &
Crl.M.P.Nos.7982 of 2017
16.11.2021
Page 8 / 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
