Ritu Primlani v. The State Of Karnataka And Ors., Karnataka High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

CRL.P 1886 of 2015

Judges

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rathnakala

Acts

Section 63 of the Copyright Act 1957, Section 66 of the Information Technology Act 2008 and Sections 204, 420, 468, 482 and 499 of IPC, 1860,
Sections 420, 499, 204, 482 and 468 of IPC, 1860, Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 63 of Copyright Act, 1957.
R1; SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.,
Section 190 r/w. Section 200 of Cr.P.C.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion addresses a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash a complaint bearing PCR No.128/2014 and FIR No.135/2014 registered at Ijoor Police Station, Ramanagaram. The petitioner, Ritu Primlani alias Vasu Primlani, is alleged to have committed offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act 1957, Section 66 of the Information Technology Act 2008, and Sections 204, 420, 468, 482, and 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. The FIR was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the second respondent, Smt. Thimmakka, a well-known environmentalist and green activist from Karnataka. The petitioner was apprehended at Delhi International Airport on a complaint by the second respondent and, though enlarged on bail, her passport was impounded, restricting her from leaving the country.

The complaint alleges that the petitioner used the complainant’s name without permission to register an organization called "Thimmakka Resources for Environmental Education" in California, U.S.A., and collected substantial funds under this name. The petitioner is accused of violating the complainant's celebrity rights, trademark rights, publicity rights, privacy, and personal rights by using her name, photo, and personal information on websites and in fundraising activities. The petitioner denies any commercial interest and claims to have been inspired by the complainant’s environmental work since 2003.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the complaint and FIR against the petitioner, alleging offences under the Copyright Act, Information Technology Act, and various IPC sections, should be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Whether the petitioner’s use of the complainant’s name and likeness without permission constitutes an offence punishable under the cited statutes.
Whether the petitioner’s actions amount to defamation, misuse of trademark, or violation of publicity and privacy rights under Indian law.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner is a philanthropist, environmentalist, and internationally recognized artist who started the environmental organization "Thimmakka Resources for Environmental Education" in California in 2003 out of admiration and inspiration from the complainant, without any intention of making profit.
She denies any commercial interest in the organization and challenges the allegations of unauthorized use of the complainant’s name and personal information.

Complainant’s Arguments

The complainant alleges that the petitioner used her name and likeness without permission to register a charity organization in the U.S. and collected large sums of money (in crores of rupees) through this entity.
The petitioner is accused of defaming the complainant by publishing personal information such as caste and infertility on the website www.thimmakka.org and using the complainant’s photo without consent.
The complainant claims the petitioner obtained her thumb impression fraudulently on a blank paper in 2011 and exploited it to further her fundraising activities.
The complainant is economically disadvantaged, living on a meager income, while the petitioner has gained financially and recognition by misusing the complainant’s identity.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court’s reasoning is based on the allegations set forth in the FIR and complaint, which include offences under multiple statutes such as the Copyright Act, Information Technology Act, and IPC. The court notes the petitioner’s apprehension at the airport and the impounding of her passport, indicating the seriousness of the charges. It also acknowledges the petitioner’s philanthropic and artistic background and the complainant’s stature as a reputed environmentalist. The court’s analysis appears to revolve around the factual matrix of unauthorized use of the complainant’s name, alleged defamation, and fraudulent activities related to fundraising. The detailed legal analysis or final conclusion on the merits is not included in the provided text.

Holding and Implications

This information was not available in the provided opinion.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Ritu Primlani v. The State Of Karnataka And Ors.

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1886/2015

BETWEEN:

RITU PRIMLANI ALIAS VASU PRIMLANI

D/O SH. PAMA PRIMLANI

R/O B-180 PRIYADARSHINI VIHAR,

LAKSHMI NAGAR,

EAST DELHI – 110 092.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI JAYNA PANKAJ KOTHARI, ADV.)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

RAMNAGARAM POLICE STATION,

RAMNAGARAM – 562 159.

2. SMT.THIMMAKKA

AGED 102 YEARS

RESIDING AT MALLESHWARA BADAVANE,

IJOOR, RAMNAGARM – 562 159.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL.SPP. FOR R1;

SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION

482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT

- 2 -

BEARING PCR NO.128/2014, PENDING BEFORE THE

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGARAM

PRODUCED HEREIN AS ANNEXURE-A AND THE FIR

NO.135/2014 REGISTERED AT POLICE STATION IJOOR,

RAMANAGARAM, U/S 420, 499, 204, 482, 468 IPC SEC.66

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT AND SEC.63 OF THE

ANNEXURE-B.

THIS CRL.P. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR ORDER ON 06/10/2015 AND COMING ON FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT

MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

O R D E R

The petitioner herein is alleged to have committed offences

punishable under Section 63 of the Copyright Act 1957, Section 66

of the Information Technology Act 2008 and Sections 204, 420,

468, 482 and 499 of IPC, 1860, in the FIR dated 20.05.2014,

registered by the respondent Police, on reference by the

jurisdictional Magistrate, in pursuance of a private complaint filed

by the complainant/2nd respondent under Section 190 r/w. Section

200 of Cr.P.C.

2. Uncontroverted portion of petitioner’s case is:

- 3 -

The petitioner is a philanthropist, environmentalist, and also

an artist of international repute conducting standup comedy shows.

She visited India and while she was at Delhi International Airport

for her return journey on 19.07.2014, she was apprehended by

police on the complaint of the second respondent. Though she

was enlarged on bail, since her passport is impounded and taken to

the custody of the Court, she is unable to move out of the Country.

It is also not in dispute that the second respondent is well known as

a Green Activist and an Environmentalist residing in Karnataka.

Her popularity is planting 800 trees (200 to 300 Banyan trees) along

4 km. stretch between Hulikal and Kudur Road. She is a recipient

of many awards.

3. Allegation against the petitioner in the complaint is, she

used the name of the complainant to her likeness and has named

the accused Corporation as ‘Thimmakka Resources for

Environmental Education’, registered the same as a Charity

Organisation in California, U.S.A., without the written or oral

- 4 -

permission of the complainant. She has collected funds for the

organization in Dollars which runs to Crores of rupees. She has

started ‘The Thimmakka Certified Green Business (TCGD)

program in San Francisco (California), Miami (Florida) and

Vancouver (British Columbia) under which the restaurants meeting

the environmental standards are certified and further certain

amount is collected from them etc. The petitioner/accused shot to

fame by using the name of the complainant and has also became a

recipient of various awards. She has violated complainant’s

celebrity rights under Indian Copy Right Act, Trademark Rights,

publicity rights, privacy and personal rights. She has admitted of

having collected of Dollar 1 million for her organisation for her

Green Certifying Programme. She has defamed complainant by

giving her personal information on the website :

www.thimmakka.org by mentioning about her caste as Dalit and

about her infertility. Now she has fraudulently altered the website :

www.thimmakka.org. Complainant came to know about the fraud

committed by the accused through her Son a month ago. The

- 5 -

accused has used the complainant’s photo on her website without

her permission. During 2011, the accused met the complainant

with some people and obtained her thumb impression on a blank

paper and has taken advantage of the same. She has been rising

funds online and also by arranging programmes. The complainant

is living with the meager income of Rs.400/- per month while the

accused has progressed economically. She has committed offences

punishable under Sections 420, 499, 204, 482 and 468 of IPC, 1860,

Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 63 of

4. Smt. Jayna Pankaj Kothari, learned Counsel for the

petitioner submits that, due to her interest in the filed of

environmental conservation, the petitioner met the complainant in

the year 2003 and was inspired, but not with intention of making

profit. She started environmental organization in California known

as Thimmakka Resources for Environmental Education in the year

2003. She has no commercial interest from the said organization.

Ritu Primlani v. The State Of Karnataka And Ors.

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

Complainant’s Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Ritu Primlani v. The State Of Karnataka And Ors.

Comments