Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1984, Sections 51(a)((ii) and 63(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1984, Sections 51(a)((ii) and 63(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Inspector of Police, Cuddalore v. Thirumurugan

    Suo Motu TR.No.8441 of 2025

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

    DATED: 23.09.2025

    CORAM:

    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

    Suo Motu TR.No.8441 of 2025 (C.C.No.21 of 2022 of District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Needamangalam Taluk, Tiruvarur)

    For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sugendran

    Additional Public Prosecutor

    ORDER

    This Suo Motu Case is dealt with in an extraordinary manner by the Dedicated Bench, pursuant to Suo Motu W.P.(Crl.) No.618 of 2025.

    2. This case is registered for alleged offence under Sections 15(3) and 8A of the Tamil Nadu Exhibition of Films on Television Screen through Video Cassette Recorders and Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1984, Sections 51(a)((ii) and 63(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The incident occurred on 21.01.2020. In this case, the allegation is that the local Cable Operator, without any copyright whatsoever, has telecasted certain copyrighted films and other materials. For the said allegation, the case is pending from the year 2022. It is also stated that the de facto complainant himself is not traceable. Considering the factual matrix, context of the case, the antecedents of the accused, the reason for absence from his usual place, and the submission that, despite best efforts, the summons could not be served, it is evident that even if the accused is brought to face trial, it would impinge upon his right to a speedy trial. Due to the passage of time, no

    1

    meaningful trial is likely to be taken place and no useful purpose would be served.

    2

    D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

    grs

    3. Accordingly, the case in C.C.No.21 of 2022 of District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Needamangalam Taluk, Tiruvarur, stands quashed. This Suo Motu Transfer Case is disposed of.

    23.09.2025

    grs

    Note to the Trial Court: This order is digitally signed and communicated electronically alone. The Trial Court shall take note of the order and accordingly classify the case pending before them as allowed / dismissed / disposed of, etc, and while doing so, consider any applications such as disposal of properties, etc., and pass appropriate orders, as may be necessary. Further, the Court below is directed to dispatch the copy of this order to all concerned.

    Suo Motu TR.No.8441 of 2025

    3

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Inspector of Police, Cuddalore v. Thirumurugan
    (Sep 23, 2025)