ANAND PALAN Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule Made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

(2.) The petitioners invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India andsection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the FIR No. 93 of 2018 dated 20/ 6/2018 registered by the respondent No. 2 against petitioners under section 63B and 69 of the Copyright Act,1957, 'Act', for short here-in-after.

(3.) Heard Shri Yogesh Nadkarni, learned Advocate for the petitioners who contended thatitwasthe modusoperandioftherespondent No. 3 to represent himself as the constituted attorney and Anti-Piracy Partner for many software companies and in liaison with the police/investigating agency had initiated FIR against them for the stated offences under the said Act. The respondent No. 3 with the assistance of the Margao Town Police had searched the petitioners' office at Margao and thereupon the offence came to be registered against them. The respondent No. 3 had also pressurized the petitioners to sort out the entire matter and to pay exorbitant purported compensation to him. The law had been set in motion to make gains by the agents with the active help of the police and therefore considering the judgments in (Bharat Mewawala and anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors.)1, Criminal Application No. 198 of 2016 and (Nirav Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.)2, 2018(2) Crimes 81(Bom.) of the Division Bench of this Court passed at the principal seat, it was a fit case to quash the FIR.