Court’s Decision
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the FIR registered under Section 63 of the Copyright Act against Dr. Ena Sharma, holding that the allegations, if accepted on their face value, disclosed the commission of a cognisable offence. The Court ruled that investigation cannot be scuttled at the threshold merely on disputed facts and that copyright issues in academic publications involve mixed questions of fact and law that require investigation.
Facts
A Senior Resident at Dr. Y.S. Parmar Medical College, Nahan, lodged a complaint alleging that her X-ray images, surgical images, intraoperative images, and research material published in the International Journal of Advanced Research (IJAR) were used without permission in an article co-authored by Dr. Ena Sharma and published in the Journal of Pharmaceutical Research International in February 2021. Based on this, an FIR under Section 63 of the Copyright Act was registered. Dr. Sharma filed a petition to quash the FIR, claiming the images belonged to Dr. Amit Lakhani, who had authored both studies, that the abstract was incorrect in the first article, and that the publication rights had been assigned to IJAR.
Issues
- Whether the FIR under Section 63 of the Copyright Act should be quashed at the investigation stage.
- Whether the allegations disclose a cognisable offence.
- Whether disputes regarding copyright infringement in academic research can be decided without investigation.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Dr. Ena Sharma argued:
- The allegations are false and are the result of matrimonial disputes between the complainant and her husband, Dr. Amit Lakhani.
- The first article’s copyright had been assigned to IJAR, and the complainant had no subsisting rights.
- The disputed images were part of a study conducted by Dr. Lakhani, who had the right to reuse them in subsequent publications.
- The continuation of the criminal proceedings amounted to abuse of process, and the matter, if any, was a civil dispute or could be decided by ICMR or the Copyright Registrar.
- Reliance was placed on Madhavrao Scindia, B.N. John v. State of UP, and Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued:
- Investigation was at a preliminary stage and should not be thwarted at this stage.
The complainant contended:
- The images and research material were reproduced in Dr. Sharma’s publication without consent.
- Copyright infringement under Section 63 was made out prima facie.
- Locus standi is foreign to criminal jurisprudence, and as a joint author, the complainant could lodge the complaint.
- Cited R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films, M/s Knit Pro International v. State of NCT Delhi, AR Antulay v. Ramdas, and Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analysed:
- The principles from Bhajan Lal, Neeharika Infrastructure, and Ajay Malik, reiterating that quashing of FIRs is an exception and can only be exercised when the allegations do not disclose any offence or when the proceeding is manifestly mala fide.
- A.R. Antulay and Manohar Lal v. Vinesh Anand were cited to reaffirm that locus standi is not applicable in criminal cases, and anyone can set the criminal law in motion.
- The nature of copyright disputes requires factual examination and cannot be decided in a quashing petition.
Precedent Analysis
Key precedents referred:
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal: Principles for quashing FIRs.
- Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra: Investigation should not be thwarted unless it is a rarest of rare case.
- A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas: Locus standi not applicable to criminal law.
- Madhavrao Scindia v. Sambhajirao: Court may quash proceedings if allegations do not disclose an offence.
- R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films: Test for copyright infringement.
- B.N. John v. State of UP: Restates Bhajan Lal principles for quashing.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held:
- The FIR, on its face, disclosed a cognisable offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act.
- The complainant had the right to lodge the FIR, and locus standi was not a bar.
- Disputed questions of fact regarding authorship, copyright assignment, and consent required investigation.
- The High Court, under Section 482 CrPC, should exercise caution and should not interfere in investigations unless no offence is disclosed.
- It was premature to quash the FIR at the investigation stage, and the investigation would proceed in accordance with law.
Conclusion
The petition for quashing the FIR under Section 63 of the Copyright Act was dismissed. The Court directed that:
- The police would continue the investigation.
- If no case is made out, the investigating officer may file a cancellation report.
- The Court will not interfere at this stage to scuttle the investigation.
Implications
- Reaffirms the limited scope of quashing FIRs at the preliminary stage.
- Establishes that copyright disputes in academic publications involve complex facts requiring investigation.
- Clarifies that locus standi does not apply in criminal law, and joint authors can lodge FIRs in copyright infringement cases.
Brief Note on Cases Referred
- Bhajan Lal: Laid down guidelines for quashing FIRs.
- Neeharika Infrastructure: Cautioned courts against interfering with investigations unless it is a rare case.
- A.R. Antulay: Clarified that locus standi is not applicable in criminal law.
- Madhavrao Scindia: Explained circumstances for quashing proceedings.
- R.G. Anand: Discussed substantial similarity test for copyright infringement.
- B.N. John v. State of UP: Restated the Bhajan Lal principles.
FAQs
1. Can the High Court quash an FIR in a copyright infringement case at the investigation stage?
Only in exceptional cases; if the allegations disclose a cognisable offence, the investigation should proceed.
2. Who can file a copyright infringement complaint in criminal law?
Anyone, including a joint author, can initiate criminal proceedings for copyright infringement.
3. Does a dispute over copyright in academic research warrant police investigation?
Yes, if the allegations disclose a prima facie case of copyright infringement, investigation can proceed.