Introduction:The present case revolves around allegations of copyright infringement in an academic publication, where the petitioner, Dr. Ena Sharma, sought quashing of an FIR registered under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The core dispute concerns the alleged unauthorized use of research material and images previously published in an article co-authored by the complainant. The matter raises significant questions on intellectual property rights, locus standi in criminal jurisprudence, and the scope of judicial interference at the FIR stage.
Factual Background:The complainant, a Senior Resident at Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar Medical College, Nahan, co-authored a research article titled “Wrist Arthrodesis in Rheumatoid Arthritis using Reconstruction Plate,” which was published in March 2017 in the International Journal of Advanced Research (IJAR). Her husband, Dr. Amit Lakhani, was the principal author. The article, based on a study of five patients, included images and research observations.
Subsequently, another article on a similar subject was published in February 2021 in the Journal of Pharmaceutical Research International (JPRI), wherein Dr. Ena Sharma was named as a co-author. The complainant alleged that the second article reproduced X-ray images, intraoperative photographs, and other research material from the 2017 article without her consent or knowledge, constituting a clear case of copyright infringement.
The petitioner, Dr. Ena Sharma, contested this allegation, arguing that the data and images used were based on a separate study conducted by Dr. Amit Lakhani on 15 patients. She asserted that she merely performed statistical analysis and was falsely implicated due to matrimonial disputes between the complainant and her husband.
Procedural Background:Following the complaint, FIR No. 131 of 2022 was registered at Police Station Nahan, District Sirmaur under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioner filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the FIR. The State and the complainant opposed the petition, contending that there was prima facie evidence of copyright infringement and the investigation was at an initial stage.
Legal Issue:The central legal issue in the case was whether the FIR alleging copyright infringement, based on the republication of certain images and content from a previously published article, warranted judicial interference and quashing under Section 482 CrPC at the threshold stage.
Discussion on Judgments:The petitioner relied heavily on the principles laid down in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692, where the Supreme Court held that proceedings may be quashed if the uncontroverted allegations do not establish a cognizable offence. She also cited B.N. John v. State of U.P., AIR 2025 SC 759, reiterating that FIRs not disclosing a cognizable offence should be quashed. Further reliance was placed on Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 185, to argue that criminal proceedings should not be used as instruments of personal vengeance.
The complainant invoked R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films, AIR 1978 SC 1613, which laid down that substantial similarity in expression or content, not necessarily exact copying, could amount to copyright infringement. She also referred to Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 505, to assert that copyright offences can attract criminal prosecution. The judgments in A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, (1984) 2 SCC 500, and Vishwa Mitter v. O.P. Poddar, (1983) 4 SCC 701, were cited to rebut the plea of lack of locus standi, affirming that any individual can initiate criminal proceedings unless explicitly prohibited by statute.
The State and complainant further relied on Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, to argue that courts must exercise extreme restraint in quashing FIRs at the investigation stage. State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699, was cited to delineate the limited circumstances under which judicial interference is permissible.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:The Court, after analyzing the contents of both research articles, observed that some of the images used in the second article published in JPRI were indeed identical to those in the earlier IJAR publication. This prima facie indicated infringement of copyright. The claim that both articles were based on separate studies was not accepted without further investigation, especially as both articles had the same co-author (Dr. Amit Lakhani), who had already assigned the copyright of the first article to IJAR.
The Court rejected the argument that the complainant lacked locus standi, holding that criminal law can be set into motion by anyone unless expressly barred. Relying on A.R. Antulay and Ratan Lal v. Prahlad Jat, (2017) 9 SCC 340, the judge reiterated that copyright infringement, being a cognizable offence under the Copyright Act, can be reported by any aggrieved party.
The judge emphasized that quashing of FIR at the threshold is an exception, not the rule. Citing Neeharika Infrastructure and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Court held that where the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, disclose the commission of an offence, the investigation must be allowed to proceed. The FIR did not appear to be malicious or frivolous on its face, nor was the case one of absurdity or manifest illegality warranting judicial intervention.
Final Decision:The High Court dismissed the petition for quashing the FIR, holding that the allegations made in the complaint, supported by preliminary materials, warranted further investigation. The Court found that the continuation of the investigation did not amount to an abuse of process and that the matter was not fit for interference under Section 482 CrPC.
Law Settled in This Case:The judgment reinforces that where an FIR discloses prima facie elements of a cognizable offence, particularly in matters of copyright infringement involving publication of academic articles, the High Court will be slow to quash the proceedings at the threshold. The ruling also affirms the settled legal position that anyone can initiate criminal proceedings unless explicitly prohibited, and that the assignment of copyright to a journal extinguishes any claim of reuse without consent. Substantial similarity of content or reproduction of key elements, even if not verbatim, may amount to copyright infringement and warrants investigation.
Case Title: Dr. Ena Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others:Date of Order: 26th June, 2025:Case Number: Cr. MMO No. 242 of 2023:Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:19863: Name of Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla:Name of Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
No comments:
Post a Comment