Allowed

Chinthapally Shashidhar Reddy v. the State of Ap., Rep Byits Police L.B.Nagar, and Anothers

Telangana HC4 Feb 2022CRLP/14351/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings for copyright infringement. The court held that since co-accused persons were acquitted due to lack of evidence and hostile witnesses, continuing proceedings against the petitioner for the same facts would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in CC No.488 of 2013 pending before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, against the petitioner-A1 were quashed.

Chinthapally Shashidhar Reddy Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF^FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 14351 OF 2013

¶6

Between:

¶7

Chinthapally Shashidhar Reddy,^{S/o Ramakrishna Reddy,Aggd 27 years,Occ-} Business Fl/o Plot No.45, Shirdi Sai Nagar,^{Hastinapuram, L.B.Nagar Nativeof} Chinna Kodur Village, Chowtuppal^{lvlandal,Nalgonda District}

¶8

...PETITIONERYACCUSED No'1

¶9

AND

¶10

The State ofAndhra Pradesh, Rep. by^{Police L.B.Nagar, Cyberabad,Hyderabad} through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of^{A.P., Hyderabad}

¶11

D. Ramana, S/o D. Gurappa, Aged 40^{years,R/o H.No.8-3-231lfu433,Sri} Krishna Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad

¶12

...RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition,the High Court may be pleased} to Quash the^proceedings in CC.No.4BB of^{2013 pending on the file of the XIV} Metropolitan Magrstrate, L.B.Nagar,^Hyderabad

¶14

CRLPMP. NO: 12873 OF 2013

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances^stated in the lrlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court^{may be pleased} to Stay all further^proceedings including the^appearance of the^{Petitioner in} C.C.No.4BB of 2013 on the file of the XIV Niletropolitan Magistrate,^L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the l/emorandum^of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. S.^{P. Suresh} Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor^(TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.2.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE H0N,BLE DT. JUSTICE G. RADHA R{NI C RI l{INAl, PETITION No.l435l ol'2013

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This petiti,rn is flled by the petitioner-Al under Section⁴⁸² Cr.P.C. to quash he proceedings in CC No.488 of 2013 on the^file ol XIV Metropolitar Magisrate, L.B. Nagar, Cyberabad, Hyderabad.

¶21

The cas : of the petitioner in brief was that on 10.01.2012 at 11.00 AM, the 2'd respondent lodged a report before^{the Police,L.B.} Nagar Police Sr ation, stating that he was working as a^Junior Investigator in th: Indian Music Industry QMI) and the said IMI^was having membersl ip of 140 leading music companies.^{The main object} of the IMI was tc^protect the interest of their^{member companies from} Audio chip pirac z. He was^given General Power^{Attorney to conduct} survey and to det ect audio^{piracyand to give complaints in the police} station lbr takin ; necessary action. On^{I 0.01 .20I 2 he conducted} survey in the Imits of L.B.^{Nagar Police Station of Cyberabad} Commissioneratt with the assistance^{of LWs.2 to 4 and for'rnd sorne of} the Mobile Shol owners were^{indulgingin audiochip piracyand} named the shop^, as Sai Sri Communications,^{Nagole X road, LB} Nagar; Sri Laxn i Rasasgnya^{Mobiles, Nagole X Road,Bandlaguda} road; Manikanta Mobiles,^{NagoleX road, Bandlaguda;Sri Laxmi} Communications near^{PMRGarden NagoleX road; Dreams Mobiles,} Nagole X road a'rd Excel^{Mobiles,BandlagudaX road. He stated that} the Proprietors md the workers of^{the above mobile shopswere} indulging in aud o chip^piracy and^{they were undertakingrecording of}

¶22

DT.GRR.J Crlp.No.l275A of20l3

¶23

¶24

the cinema songs of the choice of customers in the memory cards and were collecting lnoney frorn them wirhour having any licence or copyright agreement from copyight holder. Basing on the said report, the Inspector of Police, L.B. Nagar, registered a case in Crime No.68 ol 2012 for the offences under Sections 63, 5 I , 68-4,, 52-A and 65 of the Copy Right Act, 1952 (for shorl'the Act'). The^police after investigation filed charge sheet against ,A1 to A10 for the above offences under the Act.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

¶26

Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner - A1 was the owner of the Mobile Store in the name and style of "Sai Sri Communications". His only business was sale and repair ofcell phones and he had not indulged in any other activities as alleged. The police f"rled a charge sl.reet against the petitioner contending that they went to the petitioner's shop in the^presence of panch witnesses i.e. LWs.5 and 6 and they heard songs being loaded in a memory card by A7. It was also alleged that A7 confessed about his involvement in the offence. The police seized the computers, card recorder and memory cards. The petitioner was no way concerned with the alleged memory cards. The 2nd respondent was not having any locus to lodge the case. The offences alleged would not attract against the petitioner. Without considering any of the said aspects, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner only for statistical purpose to show that they had booked cases of audio piracy. There

¶27

¶28

DI^(iRR,J -) ',^{lp i!-llTix ollttlJ}

¶29

were no allegatic ns against the petitioner and all the allegations were against ,A.7 only Apart from that, the lilm songs rvere directly available in the ntemet and hence, the question of petitioner being indulged in any cf the of'fence was not sustainable. There was no incriminating n aterial against the petitioner, continuation of proceedings agai rst the petitioner was nothing but an abuse ofprocess of law and prayer to quash the proceedings.

¶30

Leamer Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case was split u1^, against Al and tried against the other accused as stay was granted by the Court and was extended from time to time. The other accus,:d persons were acquitted on 19.04.20i8 vide CC No.49 of 2017. fhe said^judgment also attained finality as the State had not preferred any appeal and relied Lrpon the^judgrnent of tl.re High Court of Allahat ad in Pradecp Kumar^'Iank v. State of [J.P.and anotherl.

¶31

Learne I Assistant Public Prosecutor reported to decide the petition on meritr .

¶32

Perusec the record and the copy of the^judgment hled by the leamed counsel f lr the petitioner in CC No.49 of 2017. The case was tried against A21) A4, ,{6 and A.9 for the offences under Sections 63, 51,68-4,52-A rnd 65 of the CopyRight Act. The^{prosecution got} examined PWs"l to 4 and got marked Exs.Pl to Pl4. PW.l was^the complainant, PS,2 was the person who assisted PW.1 and^{who went} to Sai Sri Com nunications and Sri Laxmi Conrmunicatiorls^{as a}

¶33

r 20l9 Lawsit (A[) 516

¶34

4 DT.GRR,J Ctlp.No.12758 of 2013

¶35

customer and requested the person in the Sai Sri Communications to download the songs in his 4G memory card and stated about demand ofRs.100/- towards charges for downloading the songs by the person in the shop and that he gave 2 GB memory card to the person in Sr.i Laxmi Communications shop and he demanded Rs.90/- towards chalges and downloaded the songs after collecting the charges. pW.3 was the panch witness, who turned hostile. PW.4 was the InveStigating Officer.

¶36

After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court by observing that PWs. 1 and 2 were the employees of the same company and no report was filed by PW.l about PW.2 visiting the shop as a customer and got recorded the songs in the memory cards and PW.2 had also not stated to the police about visiting Sai Sri Communications and Sri Laxmi Communications as a customer and no eye witnesses were examined by the prosecution except panch witness, who turned hostile and there was no evidence to connect the accused with the crime, acquitted the Accused Nos.2, 3, 4, 6 and 9 forthe offences undcr Sections 63, 51, 68-4, 52-A and 65 of the Copy Right Act.

¶37

In the^judgment relied by the leamed counsel for the petitioner in Pradeep Kumar Tank case (supra), the Allahabad High Court by relying on its previous judgment in Diwan Singh v. State [1964^{Lawsui(All)182]held that when the} allegations and witnesses were same and after examination of witnesses, one accused was acquitted, then other co-accused could not be punished.

¶38

-s t\lp,\al2Tjlottt)DI GRRJ

¶39

¶40

¶41

In the present case also, the charges against the petitioner and the other rccused persons who were triecl and acquitted are on one and the same rllegations and they were all charged in the same Crime No.68 of 20 2. The Accused Nos.2 to 4, 6 and 9 were also Proprietors an I Technicians ofvarious mobile shops and the evidence against all tt ese accused was one and the same. Hence, it is considered flt to quash the proceedings against the petitioner_Al in CC No.488 of 2013 on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B. Nagar, Hydera rad.

¶42

I l. In t re result, the Criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in CC No.488 of 2013 on the flle of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, L.I . Nagar, Hyderabad, against the petitioner_AI.

¶43

Miscella reous petitions pending, if any, shall stancl closed.

¶44

SD/.K,ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶45

SECTION OFFICER

¶46

To,

¶47

1 I!-," ItY^{Metrop,litan Magistrate, L.B.Naqar,} Hvderabad.

¶48

2 tne tt MetroDolii tn lvlaoistrate, Cyberabat at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. J The Station Hou;e offi"cer, L.s.lrigir pJt;'strtid;, byb"i6oao, nanga neoav District.

¶49