Allowed

Jaydeep Sharadchandra Thosar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Sept 2014APL/653/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay quashed a criminal complaint regarding copyright offences (Sections 63(b) and 64) filed against applicants. The court held that no impediment existed as the complainant, though present, had consented to the quashing through their Advocate.

What did the court decide?

Criminal complaint filed for offences punishable under Sections 63(b) and 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957 was quashed.

Jaydeep Sharadchandra Thosar and Ors. Vs the State of… — Intellectual Property | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

902-APL-653.2014

¶2

suresh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE – CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.653 OF 2014

¶4

`Jaydeep Sharadchandra Thosar`
`& Others`	`.... Applicants`
`Vs.`
`The State of Maharashtra`
`& Another`	`.... Respondents`

¶5

Ms Sonal Bagadia for the Applicants.
Mr. K.V. Saste, APP, for the State.
Mr. Kommu Ravi for the Complainant.

¶6

CORAM: V.M. KANADE &
 P.D. KODE, JJ.

¶7

DATED: SEPTEMBER 23, 2014

¶8

P.C:

¶9

This application is filed by the

¶10

applicants for quashing of a criminal complaint

¶11

filed by respondent No.2 for offences

¶12

punishable under Sections 63(b) and 64 of the
Copyright Act, 1957. The complainant is present

¶13

in the Court and is represented by an Advocate.

¶14

He states that he has no objection if the

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

suresh 902-APL-653.2014

¶17

complaint is quashed. The complainant is
identified by his Advocate. Dispute between the
parties is a personal one. Hence, there is no
impediment in quashing the complaint by consent
of the complainant. The application is allowed
in terms of prayer clause (a) and is disposed
of.

Jaydeep Sharadchandra Thosar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaydeep Sharadchandra Thosar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Baburao Kamale Vs Shri Tukaram Kasar, CEO and Anr.

Karamshi R. Patel (Ravaria) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Aparna Ankush Chawkekar Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ulesh Narayan Gajakosha and Ors. Vs Anita Ulesh Gajakosh and Ors.

Deepak Shantilal Shah Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sona Subhash Talera Vs the State of Maharashtra