THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4596 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.261 of 2025 of Patancheru Police Station, Sangareddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and Section 63 and 65 of Copyright Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.03.2025, the de facto complainant, Senior Executive, lodged a complaint on behalf of M/s Ashirvad Pipes Private Limited and Water Tank stating that he is the authorized representative of Semita Legal, Advocates & Solicitors, authorized via a Letter of Authority. The complainant alleged that M/s Ganapathi Marketing, located at Krushi Defence Colony, Patancheru, is illegally trading in counterfeit products bearing the deceptively similar name "AASHIRVAAD" along with imitation packaging identical to that of the complainant’s company “Ashirvad,”

thereby infringing intellectual property rights and causing financial loss. Basing on the above said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.261 of 2025 before the Patancheru Police Station, Sangareddy District for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) of BNS and Sections 63 and 65 of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against him.

3. Heard Sri P. Sriharinath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 – State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint filed by respondent No.2 is baseless, motivated by mala fide intent, and aimed solely at harassing the petitioner and that no specific or overt act is attributed to the petitioner, and the allegations of illegal and unauthorized trading of deceptively similar products are vague and unsubstantiated. He further submitted that the petitioner is engaged in wholesale and retail business of household equipment and hardware, including paints and varnishes and that the trademark of the petitioner “AASHIRVAAD” is neither structurally nor phonetically similar to the trademark of the complainant “Ashirvad,” and hence there is no likelihood of confusion among consumers.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even if there were trademark issues, the remedy lies under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and not under the Copyright Act, 1957. He further contended that the filing of the FIR under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act is a sheer abuse of the process of law, intended to oust the petitioner from business and that the petitioner has already applied for registration of the trademark “AASHIRVAAD FOAMS” and responded to objections under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act. The pending trademark application was followed by this false complaint, which lacks the essential ingredients required for copyright infringement. The FIR appears to have been filed to exert pressure on the petitioner prior to the initiation of civil proceedings under Section 61 of the Copyright Act. He further contended that seizure of the entire premises of the petitioner by the Police is unwarranted and contrary to Section 64 of the Act, which only permits seizure of infringing copies. The petitioner has not made any infringing copies in which copyright subsists, and thus no offence under Sections 63 and 65 of the Act is made out. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the petitioner is carrying on business without a valid license, which amounts to infringement of an artistic work. He further s