Judgment 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.221 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent police. 2. The case in Crime No.221 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent has been registered for the offences under Sections 3(1)(A), 8(a) r/w 15(3) of Tamil Nadu Exhibition of Film of TV screen through video Cassette Recorder and through cable TV network Act 1984 and 52-A r/w 68(A) of Copy Right Act, 1957. 3. The body of the complaint reads as follows: "It is submitted that we are the Producers and Copy right owners of some of the recently released Tamil Movies namely Velai Illa Pattathari, we came to know that one Vasantham T.V. a cable operator running office at the Rajalpalayam in Virudhunagar Dist is daily telecasting not only our copy right movies but also recently released Tamil Movies of other producers without any rights. This will cause huge monitory loss to us. On 19.10.2014 at 2.00 P.M. the above Vasantham TV, Rajapalayam in Virudhunagar Dist, cable operator telecasted our copy right Movies Velai Illa Pattathari without obtaining any licence from Escape Artists, Film Media Pvt. Ltd. we recorded the above movie which was telecasted in the above Cable TV at the premises T.SURESH, virudhunagar Dist to mark the same as evidence. This a clear case of infringement of copy right publishing unlicensed consent facilitating further infringement through Cable TV Network by the above Vasantham TV. I request you to take action against the Vasantham TV for the above offence committed by them." 4. Learned counsel for petitioners contents that in recording the confessional statement of the first petitioner, the first respondent has informed of receipt of the complaint at 3.00 p.m. on 29.12.2014 and therefore, the F.I.R. informing registration of the case at 11.00 a.m. renders it false. He submits that the delay in preferring the complaint on 29.12.2014 informing of occurrence on 19.10.2014 supports such contention. Learned counsel also contends that immediate prior to the case in Crime No.221 of 2014 a similar case in Crime No.220 of 2014 has been registered at 10.00 a.m. It is unlikely that two true cases of similar nature had been registered within one hour of each other. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate(Crl. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record. 6. Confessional statement of the first petitioner informs of his arrest at 2.50 p.m. on 29.12.2014. The prelude statement informs of the Inspector of Police having proceeded to apprehend the first petitioner after registration of the case. The question of delay in preferring the complaint is a matter to be considered in the ensuing trial, if any. 7. Leaving it open to the petitioners to raise all defences, this Criminal Original Petition shall stand dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015 also stand dismissed.