SEKHAR KAMMULA Vs. S. SIVA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Telugu movie 'Leader', directed by the petitioner, moved into a controversy, due to the complaint given by the complainant, that it is a copy of his story. The magistrate refused to entertain the complaint and a revision was preferred against the said order. This petition is filed seeking for quash of the orders in the said revision passed by the learned I Additional Metropolitan Session Judge, Hyderabad in CRLRP. No. 47 of 2010 dated 05.01.2001 and also the resultant orders of the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in CC(SR). No. 5439 of 2009 dated 01.02.2011 and the consequential FIR. No. 66 of 2011 dated 18.02.2011 on the file of the Station House Officer, Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged are under Sections 120-B, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

(2.) Heard the counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the first second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the seventh respondent.

(3.) The complainant filed his complaint in the form of a memo, which shall hereinafter be referred to as the complaint, with the following allegations. The complainant registered a Telugu film story by name Leader, through the Telugu Film Directors Association on 21.01.2006. For getting an opportunity, he approached the producers in the film industry and in that process he approached LARSCO Entertainment Private Limited, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, where the second accused was listening the stories on behalf of LARSCO company. The complainant narrated his story LEADER in full length to A2, who got inspired by the story and informed the complainant that the will fix the date for the story to be heard by his superiors. The complainant has been waiting for positive response. A3 to A6 were producing the film LEADER, under their banner. A1 claimed that the story of LEADER was developed by him and directed the said film. A3 to A6 titled the disputed film as LEADER and by seeing the title LEADER, he suspected that his story might have been copied by the accused and immediately he made a representation, by requesting the Telugu Film Directors Association, to verify whether the story of the accused film LEADER is similar to the story of the complainant. The association sent a letter to A1 and asked him to give explanation. A1 had a discussion with the other accused and to escape from the allegations made against him, with malafide intention and to take support of A.P. Cine Writers Association, he became a member of the said association and registered his story with the association and sent a synopsis of the story to the Telugu Film Directors Association. The attitude of A1 clearly shows that he became a member, to influence the members of the association and to defeat the rights of the complainant.