DEEPAK MAHESHWARI,J. - (1.) This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the FIR No.414/2015 registered at Police Station Tapukra, District Alwar as well as the subsequent proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Tijara, District Alwar in criminal case No.23.11.2016 (State v. Deshraj) whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 63, 63B and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (for the sake of brevity, "the Act of 1957").
(2.) The impugned FIR has been registered against the petitioner at the instance of respondent No.2 wherein allegations have been levelled against the petitioner for commission of offences punishable under Sections 63, 63B and 65 of the Act of 1957. After investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioner before the competent trial Court whereupon cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the above offences.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offences under Sections 63, 63B and 65 of the Act of 1957 are noncognizable offences by virtue of Part-II of Schedule-I of Cr.P.C. because they carry imprisonment which can be extended upto three years only and, therefore, as per section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no police officer can investigate a noncognizable 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 FIR has been registered by the police without there being any order of Magistrate and, therefore, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed only on this ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Chaudhary v. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi, reported in AIR 2001 SC 2369 and decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in Amarnath Vyas v. State of A.P., 2007 Cri.L.J. 2025 .;