Court dismissed CrPC s. 482 application quashing charge-sheet under Copyright Act and IPC. Held prima facie case made out due to recovery of duplicate items from applicant's factory. Bail application to be decided by trial court separately.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11851 of 2022
Applicant :- Rohit Agarwal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri Prem Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record of the case.
By way of present application, applicant made a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 18.09.2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 526 of 2018 as well as cognizance order dated 29.10.2018 and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 40383 of 2018, under Sections 63 and 65 of Copy Right Act and Section 420 IPC, Police Station Etmaddaula, District Agra pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant never indulged in manufacturing of any duplicate items including J.K. Wall putty as alleged in the FIR. He further submitted that applicant was neither arrested from spot nor any duplicate item was ever recovered from his possession. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that as per allegation when the shop of co-accused Ajay Kumar was raided then huge quantity of duplicate J.K. Wall putty was recovered and he informed that he received these duplicate items from a factory and when a raid was made in the factory then, huge quantity of not only J.K. Wall putty was recovered but also duplicate items of other brands were recovered too and from the spot co-accused Anis was arrested and he informed that he is the employee of the applicant and applicant is the owner of the factory but all these allegations are totally false and without any proper investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that applicant is having no concern with the alleged recovered duplicate items and till date there is no report of any forensic lab which can show that the alleged recovered J.K. Wall Putty was duplicate.
Per contra, learned AGA submitted that as, applicant is the owner of the factory and from his establishment, huge quantity of duplicate J.K. Wall Putty was recovered and from the spot his employee i.e. co-accused Anis was also arrested, therefore,
there is no illegality in the impugned charge-sheet submitted against the applicant and all the other arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant can only be appreciated at the time of trial and not at this stage.
I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.
Record of the case shows that FIR of the present case was lodged on 26.06.2018 and as per FIR, on the information, the shop of co-accused Ajay Kumar was raided and from the shop, huge quantity of duplicate J.K. Wall putty was recovered and shopkeeper Ajay Kumar informed that he received these duplicate items from a factory and when the factory was raided then from the factory, huge quantity of duplicate J.K. Wall putty as well as duplicate items of other brands were recovered and from the spot co-accused Anis was arrested and he informed, he is the employee of applicant and applicant is the owner of the factory. Thus, duplicate items were recovered in huge quantity from the factory of applicant, therefore, prima facie from the perusal of the FIR and other documents on record including statement of witnesses, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence against the applicant is made out. As, applicant is the owner of the factory and from his factory huge quantity of duplicate J.K. Wall putty was recovered, therefore, even if till date no report is on record, which can show that the recovered J.K. Wall putty was duplicate then also on this ground proceedings pending against the applicant cannot be quashed, the report of analyst can any time be taken on record and further as witnesses including officer of J.K. Wall putty stated that recovered alleged J.K. Wall putty were duplicate, therefore, even in absence of any chemical analyst report, it cannot be said that no duplicate J.K. Wall putty was recovered. Therefore, considering the facts of the case and the allegation made against the applicant, I find no good ground to indulge into the matter at this stage.
Accordingly, the present application is devoid of merits and it is hereby dismissed .
However, it is provided that if applicant appears before the trial court within three weeks from today and applies for bail then, his bail application shall be decided by the court below on the basis of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Breau of Investigation, reported in 2021 (10) SCC 773.
Order Date :- 18.7.2022 AK Pandey
Digitally signed by ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2022.07.27 11:14:39 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the charge-sheet and cognizance order under Copyright Act and IPC should be quashed prima facie.
Whether the absence of a forensic lab report would entitle the applicant to quashing of proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBIReferred¶13
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Breau of Investigation, reported in 2021 (10) SCC 773 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rohit Agarwal
State of U.P.
Sameer Jain
Ak Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
