[2026:RJ-JP:16068]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3887/2016 Shri Rajesh Gumber, R/o B-2, Kakkar Golden, Kanti Chandra Road, Bani Park, Jaipur Raj.

---Accused-Petitioner-Applicant Versus

1. State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

Non-Petitioner

2. Shri Hemant Bardiya Son of Shri Jitendra, R/o 24, Pragati Nagar, Police Station, Kotda Christianganj, Ajmer Hall, Campni M Sbran M/s Brands Protectors India Pvt Ltd.

Sector- 15, Part 122, Gurgaon HR

3. M/s. Brands Protectos Indian Pvt. Ltd. 122, Sector-15, Part-1, Gurugram, Haryana Email : S_suri06@yahoo.co.in through Director Dheerendra Singh/Narendra Singh/Reema Dutta Roy.

---Complainant-Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishabh Bansal for Mr. G.D.

Bansal For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S.Dhakar-PP Ms. Pratyushi Mehta JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

16/04/2026

1. By way of filing the instant petition, a prayer has been made to quash the entire proceedings arising out of impugned FIR No. 121/2014, registered with Police Station Sanjay Circle, District Jaipur (North) for the offences punishable under Sections 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act of 1957') and under Section 420 IPC.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR, the petitioner used the label of "Mufti" on his cloths and the same amounts to infringement of the provisions contained under Section 13 of the Act of 1957. Counsel submits that using logo on cloths does not cover or fall within the ambit of provisions contained under Section 13 of the Act of 1957. Counsel submits that Section 13 of the Act of 1957 which deals with “works in which copyright subsists”, is confined to violation of six particular categories of works which are not applicable in the instant case. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Punjab and Harayan High Court in the case of Davindra Pal Bakshi Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. reported in 2026 SCC Online P & H 706. Counsel submits that as per their right of Section 13 of the Act of 1957 makes it abundantly clear that copyright subsists only in respect of the specific classes of works enumerated therein. Garments or clothing do not fall within the ambit of the said classes of work, hence interference of this Court is warranted.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that as per the allegations leveled in the impugned FIR, the complainant is having copyright of the logo "Mufti" which is an artistic design and the same does fall within the ambit of Section 13 of the Act of 1957 and there is a clear and specific provision in the Copyright Act covering the same. Counsel further submits that after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner before the concerned Court and after framing of charges, the trial has reached its fag end and the evidence of the prosecution has also been completed. Hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the present petition is liable to be rejected.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

5. Versions and cross-versions have been made by the rival sides with regard to filing of the instant case under the provisions of the Act of 1957.

6. As per the case of the petitioner, garments/clothing do not fall within the ambit of Section 13 of the Act of 1957 hence the provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 1957 are not attracted and on the other side, it has been argued by the counsel for the complainant that an artistic design of the logo "Mufti" has been used by the petitioner, hence under these circumstances, it is a violation of the provisions contained under Section 13 of the Act of 1957. This is a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated by this Court while exercising its inherent power contained under Section 482 Cr.