- (1.) CAV JUDGMENT 1 By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - original accused has prayed for the following reliefs: "8 (A) Admit and allow this petition. (B) Issue appropriate writ order or direction, for quashing and setting aside the FIR CR No.II4/2015 registered at Panvel City Police Station, District New Mumbai, State of Maharastra on 21.01.15, for the offence U/ss. 63 and 64 of Copy Right Act. (C) Pending admission and final hearing of this petition, stay the further proceedings of FIR CR No.II4/2015 registered at Panvel City Police Station, District New Mumbai, State of Maharastra on 21.01.15, for the offence U/ss. 63 and 64 of Copy Right Act. (D) Grant such other and further relief as thought fit in the interest of justice."
(2.) The facts of this case may be summarized as under: 2.1 The petitioner is one of the partners of a partnership firm running in the name of M/s. S.V. Chemicals. The firm is engaged in the business of marketing and selling the detergent cake, soap and washing powder with a trademark / label mark 'YUG UNJAHWALA'. The respondent No.2 lodged a First Information Report at the Panvel City Police Station, State of Maharastra bearing C.R. No.II ­ 4 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act. It is the case of the respondent No.2 that he is engaged in the business running in the name of 'YUG Corporation'. It is his case that he had taken up the issue with the petitioner as regards the trademark 'YUG' and the petitioner had assured him that he would not use the trademark 'YUG'. However, the petitioner adopted another trademark in the name of 'YUGAIN'. 2.2 It appears that there is a Regular Civil Suit No.1 of 2014 filed by the petitioner herein in the Court of the Additional District judge, Gandhidham so far as the subject matter is concerned. 2.3 It is the case of the petitioner that the F.I.R. lodged by the respondent No.2 at the Panvel City Police Station, State of Maharastra deserves to be quashed.
(3.) On 4th February, 2015, the following order was passed: "Learned advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Kruti M. Shah, has produced on record a translated copy of the impugned First Information Report. 2 Heard learned advocate Ms. Kruti M. Shah for the petitioner. 3 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that though the First Information Report was registered at Panvel City Police Station, New Mumbai, she has preferred this petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and this Court is having jurisdiction to entertain this petition in view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2000) 7 SCC 640. 3.1 Learned advocate further submitted that the provisions of Copy Right Act, 1957, would not be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Learned advocate submitted that the petitioner is manufacturing detergent cake under the trade name of Yug Unjhawala, whereas respondent No.2­complainant is manufacturing same product under the trade name of Yug Magical. Both the aforesaid products are manufactured in the State of Gujarat. 3.2 Learned advocate further submitted that the petitioner has initiated civil proceedings by filing Regular Civil Suit No.1 of 2014 before the learned District Court, Gandhidham, wherein recently Exh.5 application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the concerned civil court, against which, the petitioner is going to prefer an appeal from order before this Court. Learned advocate submitted that respondent No.2 has suppressed this fact in the impugned First Information Report. 4 In view of the aforesaid submissions, issue notice returnable on 4th March 2015. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms. H.B. Punani, waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1­State of Gujarat. Direct service is permitted qua respondents No. 2 and 3. In the meantime, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner." ;