Brijesh Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash the chargesheet no. 01 of 2017 dated 01.12.2017 and the cognizance order dated 18.02.2025 as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 5200 of 2025 in connection with Case Crime No.294 of 2017, under Section 63/65 Copyright Act, 1957, PS- Kotwali, District Gorakhpur, PS- Kotwali, District Gorakhpur, pending in court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur.

¶13

Learned counsel for applicants submitted that proceeding in shape of Case Crime No. 294 of 2017, under Section 63/65 Copyright Act, 1957 has been initiated against the applicant over the allegation that applicant is involved in selling fake product of reputed company i.e. Tata Motors. It is contended by learned counsel for applicant that as per the allegation levelled in the FIR, statement of informant and recovery memo offence under Section 63 and 65 Copyright Act, 1957 is not made out against the applicant since there is no infringement of copyright. Learned counsel also relied upon judgments dated 23.07.2025, 23.08.2025 and 11.07.2025 passed in Application u/s 528 BNSS Nos.- 20490 of 2025 (Kuldeep Kumar and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and Another), 31315 of 2025 (Naushad Husain Vs. Sate of U.P. and another) and 21842 of 2025 (Ram Ji Vishnoi Vs. State of U.P. and Another); respectively and sought parity with the same.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant application but could not dispute the aforesaid argument.

¶15

Since the entire argument has been raised by learned counsel for applicant

¶16

NA528 No. 39787 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

over legal issue as such process to issue notice to opposite party no. 2 is hereby dispensed with.

¶19

Before proceeding it would be apposite to reproduce Section 63 of Copyright Act, 1957 which is as follows:

¶20

"Section 63. Offences of infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by this Act.- Any person who knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of--

¶21

(a) the copyright in a work, or

¶22

(b) any other right conferred by this Act [except the right conferred by section 53A],

¶23

[shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:]

¶24

Provided that [where the infringement has not been made for gain in the course of trade or business] the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or a fine of less than fifty thousand rupees.]

¶25

Explanation.-- Construction of a building or other structure which infringes or which, if completed, would infringe the copyright in some other work shall not be an offence under this section.

¶26

65. Possession of plates for purpose of making infringing copies.- Any person who knowingly makes, or has in his possession, any plate for the purpose of making infringing copies of any work in which copyright subsists shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 'two years and shall also be liable to fine."

¶27

After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, this Court finds that implication of the applicant is under the Copyright Act, 1957 whereas the allegation whatsoever has been made which is apparent from the narration of the FIR is not attracting sections of Copyright Act since there is allegation of selling certain products having the emblem, logo and mark of a reputed company which is not covered under the Copyright Act in pursuance to Section 63 and 65 of Copyright Act, 1957. Section 63 and 65 of Copyright Act, 1957 are penal provisions that apply to cases involving infringement of copyright in original literary, artistic, musical, or cinematographic works, and use of tools for making unauthorized reproductions thereof. There is no specific averment or material on record to suggest that the accused has infringed any

¶28

NA528 No. 39787 of 2025

¶29

3

¶30

copyrightable content and in absence of same, invocation of Copyright Act, 1957 is clearly misplaced and unsustainable in law. Learned court concerned while passing impugned order dated 18.02.2025 ignored this aspect and as such the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶31

Impugned charge sheet dated 01.12.2017 and cognizance order dated 18.02.2025 as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 5200 of 2025 in connection with Case Crime No.294 of 2017, under Section 63/65 Copyright Act, 1957, PS- Kotwali, District Gorakhpur, PS- Kotwali, District Gorakhpur, pending in court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, are hereby quashed and set aside only in respect of applicant namely Brijesh Singh.

¶32

9. The application u/s 528 BNSS stands allowed .

¶33

However, the authorities are at liberty to proceed against applicant, if required, under the relevant sections of relevant Act.

¶34

(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)

¶35

November 17, 2025 Radhika

¶36

Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Brijesh Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Honey vs State of U.P. through Its Principal Secretary Home U.P. Lucknow & 3 Others

Dharmendra Mourya vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandrapal Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Pravez Alam and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Dayanand Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Javed and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others