Back
2026 Supreme(Raj) 1045
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
Sanjay Bhatt Son of Late Shri Gokul Nath Bhatt - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan through PP – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1728 OF 2016
Decided On : 17-08-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR / Intellectual Property Crimes
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.420, S.63
COPYRIGHT ACT: S.50, S.63, S.64, S.66
TRADEMARK ACT: S.103, S.104
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: O.7 R.11
Headnote
(B) Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Scope of interference - Power to quash should be exercised sparingly and only in the ‘rarest of rare cases’ - Court cannot embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of allegations in the FIR at the initial stage - If investigation is concluded and a charge sheet is drawn, quashing is generally impermissible unless the allegations prima facie do not constitute an offence (Paras 18, 22)
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed for quashing an FIR registered for offences related to cheating and infringement of copyright and trademarks. The petitioner contended that the dispute was purely civil, that the complainant did not possess a registered trademark, and that the FIR was an abuse of process. During the pendency of the petition, the investigating agency concluded the investigation and filed a charge sheet against the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the dispute regarding the ownership of the trademark is a factual matter. It observed that registration under the Copyright Act is not mandatory to claim rights, and infringement is actionable under both civil and criminal law. Since the investigation resulted in a charge sheet, the case did not satisfy the criteria for quashing.
Issues: Whether a criminal proceeding for copyright and trademark infringement can be quashed on the grounds that the dispute is civil in nature and the complainant lacks registration.
Ratio Decidendi: Factual disputes regarding ownership of intellectual property cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Since criminal remedies are statutory for trademark and copyright infringement and registration is not a mandatory prerequisite for initiating such action, the filing of a charge sheet after investigation precludes the quashing of the FIR.
Result: Miscellaneous petition dismissed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. P.L. Hissaria
For the Respondents: Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP, Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Mr. Arnav, Singh & Mr. Aditya Vyas
Order :
1. Instant miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by petitioner-accused for quashing FIR No. 229/2012 dated 06.05.2012, registered at P.S. Chomu, District Jaipur, for offence under Section 420 IPC and Sections 63, 63A, 64 of the Copyright Act and Section 103 , 104 of TRADEMARK ACT .
2. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that non-petitioner No. 2, the complainant, has filed a criminal case based on false and fabricated facts so as to settle score with present petitioner. He also submitted that there are several civil and copyright cases between the parties and were decided against non-petitioner No. 2 complainant. He also submitted that the issue pertains to right to use trademark in the name of "Dandi Namak" or "Dandi Salt", which is subjudice on date of registration of FIR and due to disputed fact a criminal case cannot be registered against the petitioner. He also submitted that they are relying upon ground No. 3, 5 and 7 as laid down in case of State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal , reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner referred the facts and submitted that there is no registration of trademark in favour of complainant and without acquiring the registration the complainant has filed a false criminal case on concocted facts, which is an abuse of process of law. He also referred Annexure 3, an order passed by Copyright Board and submitted that the complainant was respondent in said case and the order is passed against the respondent complainant. He further referred Annexure-4, an order dated 23.11.2011, and submitted that again an order is also passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, which is sufficient to show that the complainant does not possess a copyright over the trademark of "Dandi Salt" or "Dandi Namak". He submitted that after decision of Copyright Board and IPAB, the FIR is an abuse of process of law, hence same deserves to be quashed.
4. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon judgment in case of Krishika Lula and Ors. versus Shyam Vitthalrao Devkatta and Anr. , 2016 (1) WLC (SC) Crl 171, Dr. Rini Johar and another versus State of M.P. , 2016 RCC (SC) 392, Noorahammad and others versus State of Karnataka , 2016 (1) WLC (SC) Criminal 479, and Arnesh Kumar versus State of Bihar , 2014 (2) WLC (SC) Cri 286, and submitted that the FIR is registered in year 2012 whereas the petitioner was arrested in 2016 from Bombay and no notice was served to the petitioner before taking any action by police. He also submitted that assuming the fact even then this is a dispute of civil nature and a criminal case is impermissible, in particular when the complainant is not possessing any copyright or the trademark as claimed by him.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2 have opposed the contentions raised by the petitioner.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a report received from P.S. Chomu, Jaipur West, which indicate that charge sheet No. 315/2017 dated 30.6.2017, under Section 420 IPC, 63, 63A, 64 of Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 103 , 104 of Trademarks Act, 1999, has been drawn against Ramswaroop and present petitioner Sanjay Bhatt, but investigation has kept pending against Suresh Dongia under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. The report further indicate that charge sheet is filed against Ramswaroop in the Court of Judicial Magistrate on 6.6.2023. The report is taken on record.
7. Learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2 complainant has submitted that the contention of petitioner are erroneous and wrong, rather the complainant is owner of trademark "Dandi Salt" and "Dandi Namak". He also admitted the litigation, but submitted that ultimately the copyright and trademark disputes were decided in favour of petitioner, who is using these trademark for past several years and the law over the intellectual property is based upon user account and not on the basis of registration. He also referred judgment in case of Anukul S
