IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 05 of 2004 Sardar Randhir Singh S/o Sardar Harbhajan Singh Proprietor M/s Randhir Prakashan, Railway Road, Behind Arti Hotel, Haridwar, District Haridwar. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal / Uttarakhand 2. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. 3. Vishnu Prasad Chandgotia General Secretary / Trustee of Gita Press A Society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, P.O. Gita Press, Gorakhpur, U.P. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder for the respondents No. 1 & 2 / State. Mr. V.B.S. Negi and Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Advocates for respondent No. 3. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5070 of 2003; State Vs. Randhir Singh, relating to offences punishable under Section 420, 468, 471 of I.P.C., pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. 2 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3) The complaint dated 13.08.2002 was made by General Secretary of Gita Press to the Chief Minister of Uttarakhand that some titles of Gita Press are being copied and published to create confusion among the people. On the basis of said complaint, a first information report appears to have been lodged with police station Kotwali Haridwar (Crime No. 648 of 2002), relating to offences punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 63, 68- A of the Copy Right Act. 4) It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioner and shown to this Court from the complaint that it is nowhere mentioned that which author had the copy right of the religious book. Copy right can be owned only as provided under the Copy Right Act, 1957. It has been nowhere mentioned in the report that whose copy right was copied and what part and what contents were copied. Assuming for a moment, what is alleged in the complaint is correct, even then the provisions of the Copy Right Act, are not attracted. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to Annexure –6 to the petition, which is copy of the report, after the raids were conducted in the godown of the petitioner, in which it is clearly mentioned that nothing incriminating was found in the 3 godown. As to Section 420 of I.P.C., it is pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that there is no allegation against the petitioner, except that the petitioner mentions in the book published through ‘Randhir Prakashan’ that contents of the book are as contained in the book published by Gita Press. The disclosure of said fact itself removes the deception of the purchaser of the book. 6) For the reasons as discussed above, the proceedings of the impugned criminal case are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed, and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5070 of 2003, State Vs. Randhir Singh, relating to offences punishable under Section 420, 468, 471 of I.P.C., pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, are hereby quashed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. June 09, 2010. H. Negi 4