Judgment D.A. Mehta, J.—This application has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashing of First Information Report (FIR) No. I.296/03 lodged with Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad for alleged offences under Sections 63 and 63-A of the Copyright Act, 1957 (Copyright Act) as well as Sections 406, 420, 424 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 2. The case of the applicants, more particularly Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 is that on or about 16.6.1998 the said two Applicants, who are wife and husband respectively, commenced business in the name of a Registered Partnership Firm known as Avi Trading Company. There were other family members who were partners. The business of the Firm consisted of manufacturing and marketing of textile machinery and the said Firm continues with the same business even today. It is the say of the Applicants that the word ‘AVI’ has been coined by using the first and last letters of their two daughters, Anuja and Vaibhavi, ‘A’ from Anuja and ‘V&I’ from Vaibhavi. 3. That on expansion of volume of business M/s. Avi Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (the Company) was incorporated on or about 24.3.1994, wherein Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 were Directors. The said Company commenced manufacturing Cotton Ginning related machinery which included Lint Cleaner (also known as Super Step Cleaner or Post Cleaning Cleaner) and Stationery Condenser (also known as Trolley) and Cotton Ginning Trolley (also known as Bucket or Air Separator). These machineries are manufactured by using traditionally prevalent designs in the industry and the designs are neither new nor original nor invented by any one including Opponent No. 3, Shri Naranbhai R. Kadia, one Shri Devang Shah, or by Avi Sales Private Ltd. In fact the Company is using the said designs since 1997. 4. Avi Sales Private Ltd. is a Company incorporated on 2.11.1998. There were three Directors in the said Company viz. Applicant No. 2 herein, Shri Rahul Ramnikbhai Shah, Shri Naranbhai Kadia and Shri Devang Shah. 5. During calendar year 1999, Avi Engineering Private Ltd. started manufacturing machinery known as Cotton Ginning Trolley (also known as Janki Rath) on the basis of a design developed by the Applicants. The Applicants have manufactured about 152 trolleys and most of them have been sold through Avi Sales Private Ltd. 6. 5. During calendar year 1999, Avi Engineering Private Ltd. started manufacturing machinery known as Cotton Ginning Trolley (also known as Janki Rath) on the basis of a design developed by the Applicants. The Applicants have manufactured about 152 trolleys and most of them have been sold through Avi Sales Private Ltd. 6. It is the say of Shri Naranbhai Kadia and Shri Devang Shah that Applicant No. 2 was removed as Director from Avi Sales Private Ltd., but Applicant No. 2 does not accept such removal and claims that Applicant No. 2 continues to be the Director of Avi Sales Private Ltd. It is further averred that in absence of Applicant No. 2, Avi Sales Private Ltd. has started manufacturing similar trolley fraudulently and after imitating design developed by Avi Engineering Private Ltd., and such manufacture has commenced on or around 2002. 7. This is the backdrop in which the present application and the FIR have to be considered. It is the say of the Applicants that none of the ingredients of the alleged offences are shown to be satisfied so as to warrant lodging of such FIR and the entire action being mala fide, the FIR is required to be quashed. 8. On behalf of the Applicants, it was submitted that a civil dispute between the parties has been used to initiate criminal proceedings without even prima facie establishing in what manner the Applicants are shown to have committed the alleged offences, as no offences have at all been committed. In this context, the learned Advocate referred to Civil Suit No. 2305 of 2003 filed in City Civil Court, Ahmedabad by Avi Sales Private Ltd. against Avi Engineering Private Ltd., Avi Trading Company (the Partnership Firm) and other six persons, including applicant Nos. 1 and 2, who are applicants in this application, to point out that in the said suit Opponent No. 3 and Shri Devang Shah had sought permanent and interim injunction in relation to registered design bearing No. 191555 dated 19.3.2003, No. 191559 dated 19.3.2003 and No. 191560 dated 19.3.2003. It is claimed in the suit that Shri Naranbhai R. Kadia is the Power of Attorney Holder of Avi Sales Private Ltd., who is the owner of the registered designs and industrial drawings which could not be used by the defendants of the suit. It is claimed in the suit that Shri Naranbhai R. Kadia is the Power of Attorney Holder of Avi Sales Private Ltd., who is the owner of the registered designs and industrial drawings which could not be used by the defendants of the suit. After the defendants put in appearance, filed written statement, defendants made application under Section 22(4) of the Designs Act, 2000. After hearing the parties, vide order dated 24.9.2003 the suit has been transferred before the High Court without any injunction being granted. The learned Advocate thereafter invited attention to similar suit having been filed between the same parties in the Court of District Judge, Jalgaon, Maharashtra being Regular Civil Suit No. 2 of 2003. Attention was also invited to various invoices between September, 1997 to March, 2001, as well as Summary Suits filed in June, 2003 recovery of sums from Avi Sales Private Ltd. and similar other civil litigations like HRP Suit No. 7115 of 2003 etc., to contend that the parties have been litigating on civil side and in the circumstances, the entire action of Opponent No. 3 and others in filing the criminal complaint is mala fide and is required to be struck down. 9. As against that learned Advocate appearing for Opponent No. 3, the complainant, submitted that at this stage the Court is not required to ascertain as to whether the offences which are alleged to have been committed by the applicants are proved or not, and the complainant was not required to verbatimly reproduce, in the body of the complaint, all the ingredients of the offences alleged. That the complainant was also not required to state that the intention of the Accused was dishonest or fraudulent. That while reading the complaint the Court was not required to split up the definition of the offences into different components and make a meticulous scrutiny as to whether all ingredients have been stated in the complaint or not. That once the factual foundation for the offences was shown to have been laid in the complaint the Court should not quash the criminal proceedings at the investigation stage, which was the stage in the present proceedings. For this submission reliance was placed on Supreme Court decision in the case of Rajesh Bajaj vs. State NTC of Delhi, AIR 1999 SC 1216 . For this submission reliance was placed on Supreme Court decision in the case of Rajesh Bajaj vs. State NTC of Delhi, AIR 1999 SC 1216 . The learned Advocate therefore submitted that the Court should not interfere at this stage and power of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection. It was further submitted that merely because there was a dispute as to commercial transaction or money transaction between the parties that can be no reason for holding that the offence is not committed. That the Court should avoid a hyper technical approach, that the stage of the application was premature, and the Court should therefore reject the Application. 10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has also been heard. 11. There can be no dispute with the proposition laid down in the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court. It is true that the Court is not required to examine the complaint as if the trial is being conducted. But at the same time the complaint must reveal material particulars by laying factual foundation to show that prima facie an offence appears to have been committed. Though all ingredients of offences may not have been stated in the complaint, the facts stated in the complaint must indicate, albeit prima facie, that there is likelihood of such an offence having been committed. 12. The present complaint itself is, as pointed out by the learned APP from the record, a written complaint tendered by Opponent No. 3, which has been treated as FIR by the Police Authorities. The subject matter of complaint is titled as a complaint in terms of provisions of sections 63 and 63A of the Copyright Act and sections 406, 420, 424 and 120B of IPC. Paragraph No. 1 refers to the fact of incorporation of Avi Sales Pvt. Ltd., the address of registered office of the said Company, and the residential address of the complainant. Paragraph No. 2 relates to the address at which Avi Sales Private Ltd. is carrying on business and the fact of Odhav Police Station having jurisdiction in the circumstances. Paragraph No. 1 refers to the fact of incorporation of Avi Sales Pvt. Ltd., the address of registered office of the said Company, and the residential address of the complainant. Paragraph No. 2 relates to the address at which Avi Sales Private Ltd. is carrying on business and the fact of Odhav Police Station having jurisdiction in the circumstances. Paragraph No. 3 states that three designs, bearing numbers, as specified hereinbefore, have been registered under the Designs Act, 2000 and the owner being Avi Sales Private Ltd. Thereafter the complaint states that any act of using such design or industrial drawing for manufacturing and selling without written permission would amount to infringement to Copyright and such an offence is committed and is an offence violative of the right to use a registered design. Paragraph No. 4 of the complaint refers to Rahul Ramniklal Shah (Accused No. 1) as being former Director of Avi Sales Private Ltd. while Accused No. 2 is described as wife of Accused No. 1, and Accused Nos. 3 to 6 are stated to be connected with Accused Nos. 1 and 2, that all the Accused have willfully and with intention for the purpose of obtaining financial benefit committed the offence resulting to serious detriment of the complainant. 13. Paragraph No. 5 of the complaint states that Accused No. 1 was a Director about 1 or 2 years prior to the date of complaint and was having access to the confidential documents and other important documents belonging to the Company, was looking after the administration of the Company, the complainant had full trust in him, but Accused No. 1 had dishonest intention since inception to harm the reputation and finances of the Company as well as obtain illegal financial benefit and was further acting against interest of the Company and was remaining absent and therefore had to be removed from the Directorship. 14. Thus Paragraph Nos. 1 to 5 state the historical backdrop, but it is Paragraph Nos. 14. Thus Paragraph Nos. 1 to 5 state the historical backdrop, but it is Paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 on which great emphasis was laid by learned Advocate for the complainant, and therefore the relevant extract (English translation) reads as under : “(6) After removing the Accused No. 1 of the present case from his designation of Director of Avi Sales Private Limited Company, the Accused No. 1 with a mala fide intention to fulfill his malicious object and with an intention to take revenge and bring disreputation to the company reputation and with a view to acquire personal gain at the cost of the company has left the firm taking away with him important documents of the company, papers, floppy containing computer data, sketches of machineries, computer as well as laptop from the company. In spite of repeated demands being made, he is not returning the same. After having copied ‘the confidential information’ such as important documents, sektches as well as industrial drawing, the accused on the basis of the same has started manufacturing ginning machineries and ginning plant and by manufacturing similar duplicate machines as if of our company by using confidential documents and sketches, has committed and has continued to commit a serious criminal offence under the provision of Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 with the help of other accused persons. The aforesaid accused with a view to get benefit has proceeded to provide the confidential information to others and thereby has committed an offence. (7) The accused persons of this case by illegally using and copying the registered design and industrial drawing of our company have copies the products and shown the same as if the products made by the company of the complainant and thus by misleading ordinary people, customers and traders, they are cheating the public at large.” 15. Thus, on a plain reading of the two material paragraphs of the complaint, mainly Paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 with Paragraph No. 3, as well as the subject matter of the written complaint, it becomes clear that the entire case of the complainant is based on infringement under the Copyright Act. The Court therefore called upon learned Advocate for the complainant to explain as to how and in what manner can it be stated, even prima facie, that a factual foundation showing infringement of Copyright Act was established. The Court therefore called upon learned Advocate for the complainant to explain as to how and in what manner can it be stated, even prima facie, that a factual foundation showing infringement of Copyright Act was established. The learned Advocate for the complainant could not point out such infringement, but submitted that a plain reading of Paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 indicate that at least criminal breach of trust and cheating were prima facie shown to have occurred and therefore, in light of settled legal position, the Court should not intervene at the stage of investigation. The learned Advocate read extensively from the provisions of Sections 405, 415 as well as 418, to submit that offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 had been committed. Similarly Section 424 was also pressed into service. 16. On reading the complaint as a whole, it becomes apparent that in so far as Applicant No. 1 (Accused No. 2) is concerned, except for the lady being the wife of Accused No. 1, no other act is ascribed to the said person, and therefore, the complaint, even prima facie, cannot indicate any of the offences having been committed by the said lady. 17. Similarly in so far as Accused Nos. 3 to 6, who are applicant Nos. 3 to 6 herein, in so far as the said persons are concerned no act is shown to have been committed by the said persons except for one passing reference of being persons connected with Accused No. 1, i.e. Applicant No. 2 herein. Therefore, in so far as the said four persons are concerned, prima facie, no case is made out to allege any criminal offence on their part. 18. That leaves out Accused No. 1. His role is that of a former Director who had access to certain documents and records of Avi Sales Private Ltd. Admittedly, the designs are registered sometime in March, 2003. The complaint does not reveal as to when Applicant No. 2 was removed from the Directorship. However, in the plaint of Civil Suit No. 2305 of 2003 filed by Avi Sales Private Ltd., in Paragraph No. 3, it is stated that Applicant No. 2 was removed as Director since March, 2003. Therefore, only question that remains is whether any act of as understood under the Copyright Act, can be said to have been committed by Applicant No. 2. 19. Therefore, only question that remains is whether any act of as understood under the Copyright Act, can be said to have been committed by Applicant No. 2. 19. Section 63 of the Copyright Act states that any person who knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of the Copyright in a work shall be punishable with infringement etc. The definition of the term “infringing copy” as appearing in Section 2(m) of the Copyright Act reads as under : “2(m) ‘infringing copy’ means,— (i) in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, a reproduction thereof otherwise than in the form of a cinematographic film; (ii) in relation to cinematographic film, a copy of the film made on any medium by any means; (iii) in relation to a sound recording, any other recording embodying the same sound recording, made by any means; (iv) in relation to a programme or performance in which such a broadcast reproduction right or a performer’s right subsists under the provisions of this Act, the sound recording or a cinematographic film of such programme or performance, if such reproduction, copy or sound recording is made or imported in contravention of the provisions of this Act;” 20. A plain reading makes it clear that the principal work has to be either a literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work; or should be a cinematographic film; or a sound recording, or a programme or performance in which a broadcast reproduction right or a performer’s right subsists under the provisions of Copyright Act. In the facts of the present case, admittedly the provisions cannot be attracted, much less any ingredient thereof is shown to have been satisfied even prima facie. The Court is not concerned in these proceedings whether any violation has occurred under the Provisions of Designs Act, because that is not even the case of the complainant. The settled legal position cannot be understood to mean laying down a proposition of law that the Court in these proceedings is precluded from even a plain reading of the relevant provisions to prima facie see whether any offence can be said to have been committed or not. 21. As noted hereinbefore, various Civil Suits, including unauthorised use of design, cancellation of design etc., have been filed by the parties against each other. In the said proceedings the complainant has not been able to obtain an injunction in its favour. 21. As noted hereinbefore, various Civil Suits, including unauthorised use of design, cancellation of design etc., have been filed by the parties against each other. In the said proceedings the complainant has not been able to obtain an injunction in its favour. Therefore, at least, primafacie, it is not possible to state that any factual foundation has been laid which would indicate commission of any offence alleged. The emphasis on part of the learned Advocate on various provisions of Indian Penal Code cannot put life into a complaint which is otherwise not worth investigating. At the cost of repetition, it is required to be stated that the entire case is based on infringement under the Copyright Act and the provisions of IPC are not independent of such infringement but are in conjunction and in aid of such act of infringement. 22. Therefore, the criminal proceedings set into motion by virtue of written private complaint converted into FIR cannot be permitted to continue. Accordingly, FIR No. I.296/2003 registered with Odhav Police Station is hereby quashed and set aside. 23. The Application is allowed accordingly. Interim relief granted earlier is made absolute. Rule made absolute.