SUBHODAYA DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF TELANAGANA, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.46 of 2018 of Pet Basheerabad Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections 403, 420 I.P.C. and Sections 69 and 63 r/w 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

(2.) Heard Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel representing Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, apart from perusing the material available on record.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a false report is lodged by the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant who has no authority to do so. Basing on that, the impugned crime is registered and under investigation. As per the Copyright Act, the original owner has to give a complaint to the competent authority not to the police. The police has no power or authority to register the crime at the instance of the unauthorized person. The said fact is also proved based on the report dated 30.11.2015 submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Toopran Sub Division. As per the said report and the Act, any party aggrieved by any dispute in respect of broadcasting of cable network, ought to have filed complaint before the Telecom Distributor Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (TDSAT). As per Section 11 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, the competent authority is the Commissioner of Police. The de facto complainant is not the aggrieved person and the original owner of the network is Star India, so it cannot be looked into. The petitioner is running a cable network having licence granted by Star India and the licence is valid upto 30.06.2018. Ultimately, the petitioner prayed to quash the impugned proceedings.