Om Prakash-VII JUDGMENT
Om Prakash-VII, J.
1. Both the aforesaid applications are connected with each other and arises out of the same complaint cases and as such the same are being decided by a common judgment.
2. The aforesaid Applications U/S 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed with the prayer to quash the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 4492 of 2010 (Birbal Singh Rana Vs. Boney Kapoor and others) pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Meerut under Section 51 read with Section 63 of Indian Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 403 read with Section 120-B IPC, Police Station Nauchandi, district Meerut and summoning order dated 17.7.2010 as well as bailable warrant issued on 15.8.2010 and non bailable warrant dated 18.10.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Meerut.
3. Heard Sri Imran Ullah, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri P.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and Sri R.D. Yadav, learned A.G.A.
4. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that applicants are innocent and have not committed the present offence. Complaint was filed on the basis of infringement of the copyright. Notice said to have been sent to the applicants was replied but this fact was suppressed. Entire fact had been made clear by the applicants in the reply itself but present complaint was filed with a view to extract money from the applicants. Referring to the certificate issued by the Board it was also argued that film "Wanted" was produced by the S.K. Films Enterprises but the opposite party No. 2, complainant, filed complaint against B.S.K. Network and Entertainment. Thus it was argued that on this ground itself the complaint cannot continue. Further submission is that learned trial court passed the summoning order without applying judicial mind only on the basis of affidavit filed in support of the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. It is also argued that until and unless specific provisions in the statute itself is provided to take the evidence on the basis of affidavit or court permit to adduce the evidence in that particular manner, then and there only the affidavit cannot be taken into consideration as a piece of evidence. Referring to the language used in Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. it was further argued that it is mandatory to record the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on oath. Learned Magistrate did not enter into the enquiry contemplated under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The applicants were residing beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned, thus enquiry was must. Further submission is that until and unless script of "Raja Bhai IPS" was compared with the script/theme of the film "Wanted", no opinion about the prima facie infringement of the copyright could be formed. Referring to the summoning order passed in the matter learned counsel appearing for the applicants also argued that summoning order is passed only on the basis of averment made in the affidavit. Concerned ........