Surendra Jain S/O Shri Sampat Lal ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 3117 Raj/2

       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

(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.

(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

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)