SC stays criminal proceedings against Krrish 3 director Rakesh Roshan

The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the proceedings pending before a trial Court at Dehradun against filmmaker Rakesh Roshan in a case pertaining to copyright issues involved in his movie Krrish 3.

The matter came up for hearing before the Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chadrachud. Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, along with advocate Ravi Sharma and Dua Associates appeared on the behalf of Roshan.

The petition states that subsequent to the release of the movie Krrish 3, a civil suit for injunction was filed before a court in Lucknow, falsely claiming ownership of the copyright over the story of the said film. During the pendency of the suit, a FIR was registered in Dehradun against the petitioner under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

In his petition, Roshan strongly contends that Krrish 3 is an original work of his, duly registered with the Film Writers Association.

With a view to quashing the FIR, Roshan moved the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. However, the same was dismissed by the High Court, as it had become infructuous after the police had filed a charge-sheet. The petition contends,

“The Investigating agency in an attempt to impede the course of justice and prevent the Hon’ble High Court from reaching a just conclusion chose to perfunctorily file a charge sheet before the concerned trial court.”

It further contends,

“…Ld. Magistrate mechanically and in violation of the mandatory provision contained in Section 202 Cr.P.C takes cognizance on the charge sheet and issued summons against the present Petitioner that too in circumstances when the charge sheet does not mention a single circumstance suggesting culpability of the Petitioner.”

The petition states that various high courts have held that the registration of a FIR for the alleged commission of an offence under Section 63 of The Copyright Act amounts to an “abuse of the process of law. Moreover, the FIR ought to have been quashed, as the offence punishable under section 63 was non-cognizable.

It also contends that since the petitioner is a resident of Mumbai, the Magistrate was obliged to adhere to the mandatory statutory safeguards contained in Section 202 Cr.P.C before issuing the summons.

Reference-

Bar and Bench

Visit our Instagram page @lawyergyan at this link.

For more BLOG/ NEWs, CLICK HERE.

Please Subscribe for more updates.

Disclaimer: 

Lawyers Gyan has no control over above-listed items as it is directly from the customer or taken from other sources. Despite our best efforts, some of the content may contain errors. You can trust us, but please conduct your checks too. In case of any discrepancy please write to lawyersgyaan@gmail.com.