Locus standi is not a prerequisite for initiating criminal proceedings. In copyright infringement, the test is "substantial similarity" rather than "deceptive similarity," and the presence of mens rea is a matter for trial, not a ground for quashing if a cognizable offence is disclosed.

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the accused person in C.C.No.1 of 2026, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudukottai, seeking to quash the charge sheet wherein he is charged with the offences under Section 51(b)(i) r/w Section 63 (a) of the Copy Right Act, 1957 .

An artistic work under the title of Sree Manchukonda Nawaab was registered before the Registrar of the copyright in the year 2022, in the name of the Sri Chakravarthy Manchukonda. The said Chakravarthy Manchukonda is the Managing Director of the Manchukonda Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. which is selling rice and rice products. A sales representative of the Company had lodged a compliant before the respondent police on 22.01.2025, alleging that the accused herein has copied the same logo and passing of their products as that of the products of the defacto complainant's company. In view of the above said fact, their business has been impacted and fake products are flooded in the market. Those rice products marketed by the accused are inferior quality and it has damaged the image of the company. Those products were found to be sold in and around Pudukottai and the complainant's company traded the same of this fake Nawaab rice bags to Manchukonda Agrotech Pvt. Ltd., Pudukottai, where they had stocked and they are selling fake Nawaab rice and cheating the general public. Based upon the said complaint, an FIR was registered on the same date and search was conducted in the rice mill owned by the accused. It was found that the rice bag with logo as Manchukonda Nawab was sold along with the rice. It is further alleged that from the said godown, 1300 kgs of the rice found in 26 kgs bags were seized. It is further alleged that 100 empty bags with the fake logo were also seized. It is further alleged that the fake logo is completely identical and similar to the copyrighted logo, the accused had caused damage to the name of Manchukonda Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. and huge financial loss to them. Based upon the said allegations, the charge sheet has been laid under Section 51(b)(i) and 63(a) of the Copy Right Act. This charge sheet is under challenge in the present petition.

According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, artistic logo is registered in the individual name of one Sri Chakarvarthi Manchukonda. There is no prove whatsoever that this artistic logo was licensed to Manchukonda Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. The complaint has been lodged by the sales representative of the company. Hence, it is clear that the criminal law has been set in motion by the person who has no locus standi, whatsoever.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon a decision of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Crl.A.No.1541 of 2025, contended that the allegation to the copyright infringement cannot be raised if it is found that the accused persons are selling counterfeit goods contained in the labels to be printed. Therefore, they did not amount to an infringement of copyright within the meaning of the copy right Act.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that the concept of deceptive similarity can be invoked only in case of violation of Trade Marks Act. Such a concept is not available in the Copy Right Act. In such circumstances, alleging that the copyrighted logo is almost similar to the logo printed in the rice bags found in possession of the petitioner herein, criminal proceedings cannot be initiated under the copyright Act.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon Section 63 of the Copy Right Act had contended that unless mens rea is established, the prosecution under Section 63 cannot be initiated. According to him, there is no reference about any mens rea or that the petitioner had knowingly used the copy righted logo either in the FIR or in the charge sheet and in such circumstances, the charge sheet filed under Section 63 of the Copy Right Act, is not sustainable.