IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

292 CRM-M-11221-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 23.01.2026 Davinder Pal Bakshi ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana.

None for respondent No. 2.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.0453 dated 30.10.2021, registered under Section 51 and 63 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 (Amendment 2012) [for short ‘the Act’] at Police Station Ambala City, District Ambala, report filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. dated 07.12.2021 and order of framing of charge and chargesheet dated 11.11.2022 and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by complainant Manoj Pai on 30.10.2021 alleging therein that he was the proprietor of M/s Mas Valiant Agencies and has been granted copyright rights by the Raymond Company. He had also been specifically authorized by the company to identify spurious garments being sold in the name of Raymond Company and to initiate legal action against such offenders with the assistance of the police. It was further alleged that Raymond Company had informed him that Manu Textile Agency and Bakshi Enterprises, situated in Cloth Market, Ambala City, were engaged in preparing and selling combo packs of spurious garments by falsely representing them as original Raymond products. Such acts were stated to be causing financial loss to customers as well as damage to the goodwill and reputation of Raymond Company. The complainant prayed for taking action against the owners of Manu Textile Agency and Bakshi Enterprises under Sections 51 and 63 of the Act. On his complaint, the present FIR was registered against the petitioner, who is owner of Bakshi Enterprises. During the course of investigation, some spurious goods/fake cloths, fraudulently branded as made by Raymond, were recovered from the premises of the petitioner. The same were taken into custody. The petitioner was taken into custody and subsequently released on bail. During interrogation, the petitioner suffered disclosure statement admitting his guilt in commission of alleged offences. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented before the Court.

3. On presentation of challan and on finding a prima facie case against the petitioner, the learned trial Court framed charges against him under Section 51 read with Section 63 of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, which is going on. Aggrieved from the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of impugned FIR as well as the subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the very registration of the impugned FIR and the subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are an abuse of the process of law and deserve to be quashed at the threshold as the basic ingredient for invocation of Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 is the existence of a “work” which is protected under the Act and Section 13 enumerates the particular classes of work to which copyright protection is confined. It is argued that cloth, fabric or garments do not find any mention in Section 13 of the Act, nor can they, by any stretch of imagination, be treated as a “work” protected under the Copyright Act.

5. It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner was involved in the sale of garments or cloth allegedly bearing the brand name “Raymond”. At best, such allegations may fall within the domain of trade mark law or passing off, but the sa