Freelance photographer B J Panchal had filed a criminal complaint against Krishna Kapoor, Chunibhai Kapadia and Bunny Reuben, author of the book on Raj Kapoor. The case was pending in the 44th Metropolitan Court, Andheri. The trio therefore moved the high court in 1992 urging that the complaint be quashed.

According to Panchal, the author/publishers should have taken his permission before using 75 photographs of Raj Kapoor himself and some others of Dimple Kapadia's wedding. He claimed to possess the exclusive copyright of these pictures, the negatives of which were available with him. Before filing the criminal complaint, Panchal had also sent notices to Reuben, publisher Bipin Tanna and Krishna Kapoor. He said hispermission was crucial since the photographs used in the book were clicked in his professional capacity as a photographer. He said Raj Kapoor had specifically called him to the R K Studio for a photo session and that the photos were meant as a ``keepsake for personal collection''. Similarly, Dimple's father had invited him to his daughter's wedding. And therefore, his permission should have been sought before using these photographs in the book.

According to the petitioners' advocate, Panchal had clicked the photos as part of a professional assignment, for which he was paid. The receipt of payment, in the form of bills/cash memos signed by Panchal were also shown to the court by the Kapoors.

Justice S S Parkar of the Bombah High Court held that ever since the petition was admitted in 1992, Panchal has not filed a reply-affidavit. He has not even denied the money charged for the photos. The judge said while Panchal claimed to be a freelance photographer, it does not mean he worked without charging anymoney.

The judge has further clarified that while Panchal claims to click ``keepsake photos'', it does not connote ``photos clicked free of charge''. It only means that Raj Kapoor had asked for the photos for ``the sake of a keeping'' in his personal collection.

As per the Copyright Act, the author of the work will be the first owner of the copyright. But, Panchal cannot be the first owner, since he was clicking at the instance of either Raj Kapoor or Chunibahi Kapadia. Therefore, in the absence of an agreement/contract, the person engaging Panchal's services will be the ``first owner'', the high court has observed. The judge said Panchal's insistence on prior permission being sought was ``harrassment and nuisance''.