Disposed

Rahil Gulati and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2024A482/19221/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A High Court application to quash a summoning order and criminal proceedings for allegedly selling duplicate Levis clothing was not decided on merits; the applicants were allowed to raise their objections before the trial court at the charge-framing stage.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rahil Gulati and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Intellectual Property | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:144974

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19221 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rahil Gulati And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhay Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 5.10.2023 and the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.137 of 2023 titled as State v. Rahil Gulati & another, under section 420 IPC and section 63/65 of Copyright Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Moradabad, pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad.

¶8

The prosecution's case is that on secret information, a raid was conducted on the applicants' shop, and they were found selling duplicate jeans, lower and T-shirts of Levis brand. Subsequent to the raid, an FIR bearing Case Crime No.137 of 2023 was registered on 21.7.2023, under sections 63 & 65 of the Copyright Act at P.S. Kotwali, District Meerut. The complainant is an employee of the Nemika Consultancy Pvt. Ltd, which is authorized by Levis company to check the infringement of his brand, and therefore, with the assistance of two police officers, a raid was conducted on applicant no.1's shop and 133 jeans, 73 lowers, and 72 T-shirts of the duplicate brand have been recovered, and also 213 jeans, 38 shirts, 60 T-shirts and 13 lower of the duplicate

¶9

brand from applicant no.2's shop were found during the investigation. After recording the statement of complainantVinayak Ghanshyam Wakaikar, during the investigation, section 420 IPC was added, and after that, the charge sheet was filed under section 63/65 of the Copyright Act read with section 420 IPC.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that (i) the provision of the Copy Right Act is not applicable in the facts-circumstances of the case, (ii) the ingredients of sections 63 & 65 of the Copyright Act are also not attracted, and to substantiate his argument learned counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of the Court to the contents of the FIR and states that at the most if the contents of FIR are to be treated true then violation of the provisions of Trade Mark Act may be found. He further relied upon sections 61 & 76 of the Copyright Act 1957. He submitted that the ingredients of section 420 IPC are also not attracted as there is no intention to deceit or cheat anybody, nor has any inducement been made to the customers.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. disputes the factual submissions and states that the applicants were selling duplicate jeans of Levis company by inducing the innocent customers that the jeans and other items were originally manufactured by Levis company. A huge recovery of duplicate clothes have been made by the police on spot inspection, therefore, the applicants have caused wrongful loss to the company and wrongful gain to themselves by cheating the innocent customers.

¶12

In such circumstances, the instant application is disposed of with the liberty to the applicants to raise the grounds mentioned in the instant application before the trial court at the stage of framing of charge, and the trial court by considering the contentions raised

¶13

by the applicants, shall pass a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law.

¶14

Order Date :- 4.9.2024 Anil K. Sharma

¶15

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahil Gulati and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rahil Gulati and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases