IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

204 CRM-M-18665-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.09.2025 Deepak ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. Anshuman Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Parmod Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate for respondent no.2.

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of FIR No.128 dated 30.05.2023, registered under Section 63, 65 of Copy Right Act, 1957 (for short, ‘the Act’), at Police Station PGIMS, District Rohtak.

2. Succinctly, the facts that led to the registration of FIR are that the complainant-Anil Kumar, Field Manager, Speed Search Security Networks Pvt. Ltd., who claims to have the authorization of the said firm to take action if any fake product of M/s Usha International Ltd., M/s Indian Fan Manufacturers Association (IFMA) registered brand Usha, Anchor, V guard Industries Ltd. for their fans, coolers, mixers grinders is sold o r supplied, conducted a survey in Gandhi Nagar Area of Rohtak and found that one person namely Deepak (M/s New Meera Electronics) a re manufacturing, selling or supplying counterfeited goods under the aforesaid name and style, for which he prayed that legal action be taken against him. After registration of FIR, investigation was conducted and report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was presented against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel would contend that the allegations against the petitioner are of manufacturing and selling counterfeited goods, purportedly by M/s New Meera Electronics, under the name and style of ‘Usha, Anchor and V Guard’, which d oes not attract the offences under Sections 63 and 65 the Act, 1957. He relies on the judgments passed by this Court in the cases of Anil Kumar vs. State of Punjab and another , 2011 (18) RCR (Criminal) 304 and Gurmukh Singh and another vs. State of Punjab , 2011 (18) RCR (Criminal) 308.

4. Learned State counsel while referring to the status report filed in the present case submits that after conclusion of the investigation, challan was presented in the present case on 29.07.2023. The ingredients of the offences are fulfilled. He prays for dismissal of the petition.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has filed a reply dated 16.09.2025, which is t aken on record and as per para no.4, the complainant has no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is apposite to make a reference to Section 13 of the Act, 1957, which read thus:

“Section 13: Works in which copyright subsists:

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and the other provisions of this Act, copyright shall subsist throughout India in the following classes of works, that is to say:

(a) original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works;

(b) cinematograph films; and (c) sound recording.

(2) to (5) xx xx xx xx xx ”

8. The FIR r egistered under Sections 63 and 65 of the Act, 1957 on a complaint submitted against the petitioner by the Central Coordinator Brand Protection of Tata Steels against the petitioner therein, alleging that complaints from various authorized dealers and distributors were received by the company that the reinforcement bars produced by using TMT technology, being one of their products, was manufactured and embossed as TA-TA TMT bars by t he petitioners, who were passing the said product in the market as original TATA product and that customers were being misled, as they were unable to identify the original TATA TISCON from the counterfeit, was quashed by this Court in the case of M/s Bikaner Steel Mills Vs. State of Punjab , 2007 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 773, by observing that, “As per Section 13 of the Act, 1957, copyright could subsist in original literary, musical and artistic works, cinematograph films and sound record. There could be thus no copyright in the s teel bars produced by TATA TISCON by using TMT Technology”. It was he