Crl.O.P. challenging quashing of FIR alleging trademark/copyright infringement and cheating. Court held Sections 482/483 IPC not made out due to Trademark Act 1958 amendments. Section 63 Copyright Act cognizable. Section 420 IPC requires investigation. Petition dismissed.
Petition to quash FIR dismissed; investigation ordered.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.PNo.6138 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P.No.6138 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.No.4041 of 2021
1.R.Ravi 2.R.Raj
...Petitioners
Vs.
1.State rep. By Inspector of Police, Magudanchavadi Police Station, Salem District. (Cr.No.96/2021)
2.M/s.ENES TEXTILE MILLS, Rep. By its Authorised Signatory, S.Narayanan, S/o. Sankara Kuthalam, 8/3-C, Sengunthapuram, 1st Street, Mangalam road, Tirupur – 641 604.
...Respondents
Prayer:Criminal Orignal Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., calling for the entire records in connection with Crime No.96 of 2021 on the file of the respondent and quash the same.
1
Crl.O.PNo.6138 of 2021
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Ezhilarasan For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.A.Swaminathan for R2
O R D E R
This petition is filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.96 of 2021 for the offences under Section 420, 482, 483 of IPC and 63(a) of the Copyright Act.
2.It is alleged in the First Information Report that the petitioners designed a logo similar to that of the 2nd repondent's logo; that the words in the logo was deceptively similar to the words in the 2nd respondent's logo and that by infringing the trademark and copyright of the 2nd respondent, the petitioners sold the textiles to the general public making them believe that the products were that of the 2nd respondent.
2
Crl.O.PNo.6138 of 2021
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that
Sections 482 and 483 is not made out and the word Trademark has been omitted in the two provisions by virtue of the Act 43 of 1958. The learned counsel would further submit that offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is non-cognizable offence and offences alleged under Section 420 I.P.C. is not made out on the allegations in the First Information Report.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that even if the offences under Sections 482 and 483 of IPC are not made out, the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act can be investigated into by the first respondent, since it is a cognizable offence. Further, the question whether the allegations attract the offence of cheating has to be investigated and hence, prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.
5.This Court, on perusal of the impugned First Information Report
finds that Sections 482 & 483 of IPC are not made out in the fact and circumstances of the case. The word "Trademark" has been deleted from
3
Crl.O.PNo.6138 of 2021
the two provisions by the Trademark Act 43 of 1958. Regarding offences under Section 63 of Copyright Act, this Court finds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Knit Pro International Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another reported in (2022) 10 SCC 2021 held that the said offence is cognizable. The question as to whether 420 I.P.C. or any other offence is made out on the allegation has to be ascertained by the 1st respondent during investigation. Hence, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report in respect of the offences of Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Section 420 I.P.C.
6.In view of the same, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.04.2023
kkn
Internet : Yes/No Index: Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking order Nuetral Citation :Yes/No
4
Crl.O.PNo.6138 of 2021
To:-
5
Crl.O.PNo.6138 of 2021
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
KKN
Crl.O.P.No.6138 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.4041 of 2021
19.04.2023
6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the court can quash FIR alleging offences under Sections 420 IPC, 482 IPC, 483 IPC and Section 63 of the Copyright Act.
Whether Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable offence.
Whether Sections 482 and 483 of IPC are made out in the facts of the case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Knit Pro International Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and AnotherReferred¶3
(2022) 10 SCC 2021 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 4 enactments
1.R.Ravi 2.R.Raj
1.State rep. By Inspector of Police, Magudanchavadi Police Station, Salem District
2.M/s.ENES TEXTILE MILLS
SUNDER MOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
SUNDER MOHAN
Parties & counsel
