PRIYA SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF MP & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Sec. 482 of Crimial P.C. has been filed challenging the F.I.R. in Crime No.70/2018 registered at Police Station Girwai, Distt. Gwalior for offence under as well as the Criminal Proceedings.

(2.) The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that on 16-3-2018, a F.I.R. No.70/2018 was registered against the applicant for offence under Sec. 51/63 of Copyright Act on the written complaint of the respondent no.3. The allegations which have been made against the applicant are that she is indulged in manufacturing of Paint with a Logo which resembles with the Logo of Asian Paints, produced by the complainant. It is claimed by the applicant, that Pitambra Industries is a registered Firm situated in village Girwai, Gwalior and the applicant is the sole proprietor of the same. The Firm is engaged in the business of manufacturing paint and allied products like dyes, varnish etc. since 2013 and enjoys reputation. The applicant is manufacturing the products in the name and style of ''Maha Utsav Wall Paint''. The premises of the applicant has been locked by the respondent no.2 on the complaint of the respondent no.3, on the allegations of violation of Copyright and trade mark. Although the applicant has already filed a separate writ petition, challenging the locking of her premises, but by the present application, the F.I.R. has been challenged. It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant, that no offence punishable under Sec. 51/63 of Copyright Act, 1957 is made out. There are material differences in the design of Utsav Asian Paints manufactured by Asian Paints Limited, whereas the applicant is manufacturing and marketing in the name of ''Maha Utsav Asian Paints''. There are differences in the design of the Logo also. In order to attract criminal liability, mens rea has to be assigned to the applicant, whereas there is no mens rea. It is further submitted that the design of the Logo cannot be said to be an artistic work. There is nothing on record to suggest that there was any Copyright in favour of the complainant. Even otherwise, the respondent no.3 was not competent to lodge the F.I.R. The offence under the Copyright Act is not cognizable and the complainant has a civil remedy, therefore, the civil case, should not be given a colour of criminal case. It is submitted that the charge sheet has been filed, and no documents have been filed to show that the complainant has a registered Copyright in respect of design and Logo of the produce.

(3.) Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the respondent no.3, that being the representative of the Asian Paints (I) Limited, he had lodged a complaint and thus, he is competent to lodge the F.I.R. Furthermore, there is no concept of locus standi in criminal proceedings, and anybody can put the criminal agency in motion. It is submitted that the Asian Paints (I) Limited has a registered Logo, having its registration No.A-107636/2013 and the class and description of the work as per the registration is "Artistic". In order to take advantage of the reputation of the Asian Paints (I) Limited, the applicant is manufacturing the paints and allied products in the name and style of ''Maha Utsav Wall Paint'' and the design of the Logo, resembles with the design of Logo of the Asian Paints (I) Limited. The said act has been done with a mala fide intention to encash the reputation of the Asian Paints (I) Limited as well as to cheat the innocent customers. It is submitted that while considering the question of violation of Copyright, the Court is not required to look for the differences, but it should look for similarities. It is further submitted that the offence under Sec. 51/63 of Copyright Act is a cognizable offence and it is wellestablished principle of law that merely because a case involves civil ingredients also, would not be sufficient to quash the legitimate criminal proceedings.