Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash Amazon FIR Over Allegedly Pirated Ravi Belagere Book, Says 6,719 Sales Versus 3,000 Copies Printed Need Probe

Respondent No. 2, the daughter of author Ravi Belagere and proprietor of Bhavana Prakashana, complained that allegedly pirated copies of her father’s book were being sold on Amazon, Flipkart and Meesho for ₹149, although the stated maximum retail price was ₹350.

The police registered Crime No. 32 of 2026 against Amazon Seller Services Private Limited under Sections 51(1)(b) and 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Amazon sought to quash the FIR under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, contending that it was an intermediary and that third-party sellers controlled the listings and sales.

The State and complainant opposed quashing, relying, among other matters, on records indicating sales of approximately 6,719 copies against 3,000 copies said to have been printed by the copyright holder.

The matter remained at the investigation stage.

Section 51(b) of the Copyright Act deems copyright infringed in specified circumstances, including selling, offering for sale or distributing infringing copies; Section 63 penalises a person who knowingly infringes or abets infringement.

Under Section 528 BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 CrPC, quashing is an exceptional power to be exercised sparingly; the High Court should not conduct a mini-trial, assess disputed evidence or determine the merits of allegations while investigation is ongoing.

The Court relied on Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 9 SCC 35, and Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2355, for these principles.

It also referred to the principles in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited that courts should not thwart investigation where the FIR discloses an offence and should not decide the merits on uncertain or disputed facts at that stage.

The Court treated the alleged excess sales, the source and authenticity of the books, and Amazon’s compliance with due-diligence obligations as disputed factual matters requiring investigation.

It noted the asserted discrepancy between the number of copies printed and sold, and observed that the differing front and back covers of the original and allegedly pirated copies prima facie supported the need for inquiry.

Applying the rule against evaluating disputed evidence in a quashing petition, the Court declined to determine whether Amazon’s intermediary status or asserted compliance with statutory obligations defeated the allegations.

Those matters were not to be resolved through a mini-trial at the investigation stage.

It reserved liberty to Amazon to approach the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage.