Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111868 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21842 of 2025 Applicant :- Ram Ji Vishnoi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit preferred on behalf of applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash/set aside the order dated 27.05.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 2, Kanpur Dehat by which discharge application of applicant has been rejected as well as entire proceeding against the applicant in Case no. 3181 of 2019 (relating to Case Crime no. 45 of 2018) (State vs. Ram Ji Vishnoi) under sections 63, 65 Copyright Act, 1957, PS- Sikandra, District Ram Bai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat). 4. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that proceeding in shape of Case Crime no. 45 of 2018 under sections 63 and 65 Copyright Act, 1957 has been initiated against the applicant over the allegation that applicant is involved in selling certain oil product using mark of reputed company i.e. TATA motors. It is contended by learned counsel for applicant that as per the allegation levelled in the FIR, statement of informant and recovery memo offence under Section 63 and 65 Copyright Act, 1957 is not made out against the applicant since there is no infringement of copyright. However, applicant preferred discharge application before learned court concerned but the same has been rejected vide impugned order dated 27.05.2025. 5. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant application but could not dispute the aforesaid argument. 6. Since the entire argument has been raised by learned counsel for applicant over legal issue as such process to issue notice to opposite party no. 2 is hereby dispensed with. 7. Before proceeding it would be apposite to reproduce Section 63 and 65 of Copyright Act, 1957 which is as follows: "Section 63. Offences of infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by this Act.- Any person who knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of-- (a) the copyright in a work, or (b) any other right conferred by this Act [except the right conferred by section 53A], [shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:] Provided that [where the infringement has not been made for gain in the course of trade or business] the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or a fine of less than fifty thousand rupees.] Explanation.-- Construction of a building or other structure which infringes or which, if completed, would infringe the copyright in some other work shall not be an offence under this section. 65. Possession of plates for purpose of making infringing copies.— Any person who knowingly makes, or has in his possession, any plate for the purpose of making infringing copies of any work in which copyright subsists shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 'two years and shall also be liable to fine." 8. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, this Court finds that implication of the applicant is under the Copyright Act, 1957 whereas the allegation whatsoever has been made which is apparent from the narration of the FIR is not attracting sections of Copyright Act since there is allegation of selling certain oil products having the emblem, logo and mark of a reputed company which is not covered under the Copyright Act in pursuance to Section 63 and 65 of Copyright Act, 1957. Section 63 and 65 of Copyright Act, 1957 are penal provision that apply to cases involving infringement of copyright in original literary, artistic, musical, or cinematographic works, and use of tools for making unauthorized reproductions thereof. There is no specific averment or material on record to suggest that the accused has infringed any copyrightable content and in absence of same, invocation of Copyright Act, 1957 is clearly misplaced and unsustainable in law.Learned court concerned while passing impugned order dated 27.05.2025 ignored this aspect and as such the impugned order is also not sustainable in the eye of law. 9. Impugned order dated 27.05.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 2, Kanpur Dehat along with entire proceeding of Case no. 3181 of 2019 (relating to Case Crime no. 45 of 2018) (State vs. Ram Ji Vishnoi) under sections 63, 65 Copyright Act, 1957, PS- Sikandra, District Ram Bai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat) is hereby quashed and set aside only in respect of applicant namely Ram Ji Vishnoi. 10. The application u/s 528 BNSS stands allowed. 11. However, the authorities are at liberty to proceed against applicant, if required, under the relevant sections of relevant Act. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 Shaswat Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad