Judgment : The petitioner is accused No. 2 in C.C. 70/1990 on the file of the 17th Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The 1st respondent filed a complaint under section 52-A, 63 and 68-A of the Indian Copy Right Act 1957 against the petitioner (accused No. 2) and two others who are shown as respondents 2 and 3 in the petition. 2. The brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of this petition are as follows :- The complainant (1st respondent) was the author of the story of T.V. serial by name Himabindu telecast by the Duradarshan Kendra, Hyderabad in Telugu in 13 episodes. Due to the fact that the serial evoked lot of interest in the viewers, it was decided to extend it by another 13 episodes. But the complainants case is that she was not asked to write the story for the extended 13 episodes. It was got written by some other person and the extended 13 episodes were telecast under the same name, same theme and characters. She therefore filed the complaint against the petitioner who is the producer of the serial (A-2), the 3rd accused who is the Director and A1 the Director of Duradarshan Kendra. This petition is filed by the second accused under S. 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant had written the story for the first 13 episodes and that was telecast and there is no dispute about that. As regards the extended 13 episodes she is not the author of that story but somebody else wrote it and she therefore cannot complain that none-else should write the story in the extended episodes because he has no copy right for the ideas or theme or characters. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant i.e. 1st respondent pointed out that the story Himabindu had a particular theme i.e. a lady who on coming to know about social injustice was trying to rectify it and this became very popular among the T.V. viewers and an award was also given to the author i.e. the complainant for the story. She, therefore, contended that the complainant has got copyright both in the name of the serial i.e. Himabindu, the theme and also in the characters and when the accused got the extended episodes written by somebody else with the same theme and telecast under the same name, her copyright is infringed. The learned counsel for the complainant had pointed out that there are other violations also i.e. the 13th episode written by the complainant was distorted which is also an offence and that her name was not shown in the extended serial which also constitutes an offence. 4. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, I will refer to the relevant provisions of the Copy Right Act. Section 14(1)(a) of the Copy Right Act reads that for the purposes of this Act "Copyright" means the exclusive right, by virtue of, and subject to the provisions of, this Act (a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, to do and authorize the doing of any of the following acts; ......... Clause (v) says to make any cinematograph film or a record in respect of the work. Section 2(f) defines cinematograph film and says that it shall be construed as including any work produced by any process analogous to cinematography. The explanation reads that video films shall also be deemed to be work produced by a process analogous to cinematography. Section 51 says that copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed (a) when any person, without a licence granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar of Copyrights under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a licence so granted or of any condition imposed by a competent authority under this Act -(i) does anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the owner of the copyright ..... Section 63 is the penal provision for infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by this Act. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant has referred to the decision in Weldon v. Dicks Law Reports Chancery Division Vol. 10 page 247. From the facts of that case it can be seen that the complainant bought copy right of the Parlour Library which included the particular novel Trial and Triumph which was originally published in the year 1854. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant has referred to the decision in Weldon v. Dicks Law Reports Chancery Division Vol. 10 page 247. From the facts of that case it can be seen that the complainant bought copy right of the Parlour Library which included the particular novel Trial and Triumph which was originally published in the year 1854. The defendant published another novel under the title Trial and Triumph subsequently in 1873. It was held that copy right in the title of a book, as being a material portion of a work, will be protected, although another book published under a similar title may be totally different in form and contents. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in R. G. Anand v. M/s. Delux Films AIR 1978 SC 1613 . In para 46 it is stated as follows :- "Thus on a careful consideration and elucidation of the various authorities and the case law on the subject discussed above, the following propositions emerge : 1. There can be no copyright in an idea, subject-matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts and violation of the copyright in such cases is confined to the form, manner and arrangement and expression of the idea by the author of the copyrighted work. 2. Where the same idea is being developed in a different manner, it is manifest that the source being common, similarities are bound to occur. In such a case the courts should determine whether or not the similarities are on fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of expression adopted in the copyrighted work. If the defendants work is nothing but a literal imitation of the copyrighted work with some variations here and there it would amount to violation of the copyright. In other words, in order to be actionable the copy must be a substantial and material one which at once leads to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty of an act of piracy. 3. One of the surest and safest test to determine whether or not there has been a violation of copyright is to see if the reader, spectator or the viewer after having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original. 4. One of the surest and safest test to determine whether or not there has been a violation of copyright is to see if the reader, spectator or the viewer after having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original. 4. Where the theme is the same but is presented and treated differently so that the subsequent work becomes a completely new work, no question of violation of copyright arises. 5. Where however apart from the similarities appearing in the two works there are also material and broad dissimilarities which negative the intention to copy the original and the coincidences appearing in the two works are clearly incidental no infringement of the copyright comes into existence. 6. As a violation of copyright amounts to an act of piracy it must be proved by clear and cogent evidence after applying the various tests laid down by the case law discussed above. 7. Where, however, the question is of the violation of the copyright of stage play by a film producer or a Director the task of the plaintiff becomes more difficult to prove piracy. It is manifest that unlike a stage play a film has a much broader perspective, wider field and a bigger background where the defendants can by introducing a variety of incidents give a colour and complexion different from the manner in which the copyrighted work has expressed the idea. Even so, if the viewer after seeing the film gets of totality of impression that the film is by and large a copy of the original play, violation of the copyright may be said to be proved." 7. In a case reported in K. Murari v. M. Ranganayakamma 1987 (2) ALT 699 Rameswamy, J. (as he then was) observed "There must be present two essential things viz., sufficient objective similarity between the infringing work and the copyrighted work and some casual connection between the work infringed and the infringing work, or a substantial part thereof in the former to be found place or basis in the infringing work either by reproduction or adaptation, either with more or less colourable disguise. In a cinematograph film, if a substantial part of the film either of its expression or theme, incidents, treatment, sequences etc. In a cinematograph film, if a substantial part of the film either of its expression or theme, incidents, treatment, sequences etc. or their treatment or manner are adopted or reproduced from the original copyrighted work, it would be a piracy infringing the copyright of the owner thereof. The test is that if the reader or spectator or the person who sees the cinematograph film and reads the original copyrighted work is clearly of the opinion and gets a unmistakable impression that the cinematograph film appears to be a copy or adaption of the copyrighted literary work, it would be a case of Piracy." Therefore from the decision of the Supreme Court and of our High Court referred to above the question to be considered is whether the viewers of the extended 13 episodes of the serial have got the impression that the subsequent episodes are a continuation of the original 13 episodes written by the complainant. That is a matter to be decided on evidence to be adduced before the trial court. Therefore, unless there is evidence on that aspect it is not possible to decide whether there is infringement of the copyright of the complainant and so it is not possible to quash the proceedings u/S. 482, Cr.P.C. on that allegation. 8. The second violation as complained by the complainant is that 13th episodes written by her was distorted in order to continue the serial and therefore it is an offence publishable u/S. 63 read with S. 57 of the Copyright Act. S. 57 deals with authors special rights. Sub-section (1) Clause (a) reads that independently of the authors copyright, and even after the assignment either wholly or partially of the said copyright, the author of a work shall have the right to claim the authorship of the work as well as right to restrain, or claim damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation or other modification of the work. The allegation of the complainant is that she wanted to complete the serial with the 13th episode and therefore she has written the story for 13th episode in a particular manner but as the accused wanted to extend the serial they have made some changes in the 13th episode also without her consent and thereby it amounts to violation of special rights u/S. 57 of the Act. In para 5 of the complaint it is alleged that u/S. 57 of the Act the author has got special rights to restrain or claim damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation or other modification of the work. Accused 2 and 3 without any consent or authorisation have distorted the 13th episode and even though the story ended with 13th episode they continued other episodes. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. A-2 contended that there are no allegations in the complaint as to how the distortion was made and therefore the offence u/S. 63 read with S. 57 is not made out. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the allegation in the complaint was that though the complainant has written the story to end with 13th episode the accused have distorted it so that they can continue the serial and it is not possible to reproduce in the complaint the entire distortion which can only be explained by evidence. Since there is an allegation in the complaint that the 13th episode was distorted so as to continue the serial without her consent, though she wrote the story to complete the serial, I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that this is also a matter which can be established by evidence as to how exactly there was distortion or mutilation or other modification of the work. Therefore there are no grounds to quash this allegation also. 10. The last allegation in the complaint is that the name of the complainant is not shown in the extended serial in contravention of S. 52-A which is punishable u/Section 68-A. S. 52-A reads that no person shall publish a record in respect of any work unless the following particulars are displayed on the record and on any container thereof, viz., - (a) the name and address of the person who has made the record; (b) the name and address of the owner of the copyright in such work; and (c) the year of its first publication. The complainant has filed a suit O.S. 1/90 in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court for a permanent injunction restraining the Director of Dooradarshan Kendra from telecasting the expanded 13 episodes of the serial. She had filed application I.A. 119/1990 for a temporary injunction. The learned Chief Judge granted temporary injunction. The complainant has filed a suit O.S. 1/90 in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court for a permanent injunction restraining the Director of Dooradarshan Kendra from telecasting the expanded 13 episodes of the serial. She had filed application I.A. 119/1990 for a temporary injunction. The learned Chief Judge granted temporary injunction. Against that an appeal C.M.A 115/98 was filed. That appeal was disposed by order dt. 22-2-90. The order of the lower court was modified and the defendants were restrained from telecasting the remaining 12 extended episodes by using the name of the plaintiff as a writer but if the remaining 12 episodes are going to be telecast without reference to the name of the plaintiff as writer of the same, the same can be done by deposit of Rs. 20,000/- in the lower court. It means the accused were permitted to telecast the extended 12 episodes by deleting the name of the plaintiff as writer. It is stated that the first of the extended episode was already telecast. The complainant and the accused are parties to this appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner A2 has rightly contended that if the accused had shown the name of the complainant as the writer in the extended episodes they would have committed contempt of court because it will be in gross violation of the orders in the C.M.A. Therefore, since the complainant is also a party to the C.M.A., I agree with the contention that she cannot prosecute the accused for not displaying her name as story writer on the ground that S. 52-A requires that her name to be telecast as writer. Therefore, I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution u/S. 68-A for violation of S. 52-A of Copy Right Act is liable to be quashed. 11. In the result, the prosecution of the accused u/S. 68-A of the Copyright Act for violation of S. 52A is quashed. The complaint regarding the other violations which are punishable u/S. 63 of the Copy Right Act as referred to above are not quashed. The petition is allowed in part. Petition partly allowed.