The case under discussion involves a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR due to the wrong mentioning of a section of the law by the recording officer at the police station. The petitioner argued that the complaint did not align with the definition of "Copyright" under Section 2(y) of the Copyright Act, while the state contended that the contents of the complaint fell under the ambit of "artistic work" as defined in the same section. This article aims to delve into the legal nuances surrounding the wrong mentioning of sections in FIRs and its implications on the proceedings.

Background:
The FIR was lodged based on a complaint alleging the infringement of trademark and trade description of Diageo products. However, the FIR was registered under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, instead of the appropriate section of the Trademark Act. The petitioner sought the quashing of the FIR under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) on this ground.

Cognizance of Offence:
The Hon'ble High Court refused to quash the FIR, emphasizing that the wrong mentioning of a section by the recording officer does not invalidate the contents of the complaint. The court highlighted that the magistrate is not bound by the sections mentioned in the formal FIR or charge sheet but must assess the contents of the complaint and the evidence collected during investigation before taking cognizance of the offence.

Substantive Law Vs. Technical Error:
The case underscores the distinction between substantive law and technical errors in legal proceedings. While adherence to procedural formalities is important, substantive justice should prevail. In this case, the core allegation of trademark infringement remained unaffected by the technical error in mentioning the section.

Interpretation of Statutory Provisions:
The disagreement between the petitioner and the state regarding the applicability of Section 2(y) of the Copyright Act highlights the interpretative challenges posed by statutory provisions. Different interpretations may arise based on the facts and circumstances of each case, necessitating judicial intervention to resolve disputes.

Judicial Discretion:
The court's decision reflects its discretionary power to determine the merit of each case based on the principles of equity and justice. By refusing to quash the FIR, the court ensured that the allegations of trademark infringement were duly examined through the legal process.

Conclusion:
The refusal to quash the FIR underscores the court's commitment to upholding the rule of law while ensuring a fair and impartial adjudication of disputes. Ultimately, the decision reinforces the principle that justice should not be impeded by procedural irregularities but should be guided by the substantive merits of the case.

Case Title: Krishnendu Ghosh Vs The State Of West Bengal
Order Date: 19.03.2024
Case No. C.R.R. 3427 of 2015
Neutral Citation:NA
Name of Court: Calcutta High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Bibhas Ranjan De, H.J.

Disclaimer:
This article is meant for informational purposes only and should not be construed as substitute for legal advice as Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation perceived and expressed herein are are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue of law involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539