LAWS(RAJ)-2015-4-196

PINTU DEY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

Decided On April 09, 2015
Pintu Dey Appellant
V/S
State of Rajasthan And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal misc. petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the F.I.R. No. 468/2012 dt. 21.09.2012 lodged at Police Station, Hiranmagri, District Udaipur for the offences punishable under Sees. 37, 51, 63, 68A of Copyright Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act of 1957' hereinafter). The impugned F.I.R. has been registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, wherein allegations have been levelled against the Management of Hotel Cambay, Udaipur for commission of offences punishable under Secs. 37, 51, 63, 68A of the Act of 1957. The petitioner being the Front Office Manager of the Cambay Hotel, Udaipur is arraigned as accused in the impugned F.I.R.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned F.I.R. has argued that although in the impugned F.I.R. various Sections are quoted but Sections 37 and 51 of the Act of 1957 only deal with various definitions and actually Sections 63, 65 and 68A are the penal provisions. It is contended that the offences under Sees. 63, 65 and 68A of the Act of 1957 are non -cognizable offences by virtue of Part -II of Schedule -I of Cr.P.C. because they carry imprisonment which can be extended up to three years only and, therefore, as per Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no police officer can investigate a non -cognizable case without an order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. It is contended that the impugned F.I.R. has been registered by the police without there being any order of the Magistrate and, therefore, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed only on this ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Rajeev Chaudhary vs. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi, : AIR 2001 SC 2369 and decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in Amarnath Vyas vs. State of A.P., : 2007 Cri.L.J. 2025.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned F.I.R.