HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32345 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case no. 1050 of 2022 (State vs. Rahul Kumar) which arises out from the cognizance/summoning order dated 11.02.2022 passed by learned court of Additional Civil Judge (C.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no 7, Meerut over the charge sheet dated 31.08.2020 submitted by the investigation officer in Case Crime no. 537 of 2020 under Section 420 IPC & 63 Copyright Act, PS- T.P.Nagar, District Meerut. 3. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that proceeding in shape of Case Crime no. 537 of 2020 under Section 63/65 Copyright Act, 1957 and 420 IPC has been initiated at the behest of opposite party no. 2, against the applicant over the allegation that applicant is involved in selling fake product of reputed company i.e. S.S.Company. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet has been preferred against the applicant whereupon cognizance has been taken up by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut vide impugned order dated 11.02.2022 in pursuance to section 420 IPC and 63 of Copyright Act. It is contended by learned counsel for applicant that as per the allegation levelled in the FIR, statement of informant and recovery memo offence under Section 63 is not made out against the applicant since there is no infringement of copyright. 4. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant application but could not dispute the aforesaid argument. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Satya Narayan Gupta, Yogendra Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rahul Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Since the entire argument has been raised by learned counsel for applicant over legal issue as such process to issue notice to opposite party no. 2 is hereby dispensed with. 6. Before proceeding it would be apposite to reproduce Section 63 of Copyright Act, 1957 which is as follows: "Section 63. Offences of infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by this Act.- Any person who knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of-- (a) the copyright in a work, or (b) any other right conferred by this Act [except the right conferred by section 53A], [shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:] Provided that [where the infringement has not been made for gain in the course of trade or business] the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or a fine of less than fifty thousand rupees.] Explanation.-- Construction of a building or other structure which infringes or which, if completed, would infringe the copyright in some other work shall not be an offence under this section." 7. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, this Court finds that implication of the applicant is under the Copyright Act, 1957 whereas the allegation whatsoever has been made which is apparent from the narration of the FIR is not attracting sections of Copyright Act since there is allegation of selling certain products having the emblem, logo and mark of a reputed company which is not covered under the Copyright Act in pursuance to Section 63 of Copyright Act, 1957. Section 63 is penal provisions that apply to cases involving infringement of copyright in original literary, artistic, musical, or cinematographic works, and use of tools for making unauthorized reproductions thereof. There is no specific averment or material on record to suggest that the accused has infringed any copyrightable content and in absence of same, invocation of Copyright Act, 1957 is clearly misplaced and unsustainable in law. Moreover, since so far as implication of applicant in pursuance to Section 420 IPC is concerned, the Magistrate cannot take NA528 No. 32345 of 2025 2 cognizance on piecemeal and as such entire proceeding is liable to be quashed. 8. Impugned charge sheet dated 31.08.2020 along with cognizance order dated 11.02.2022 along with entire proceeding of Criminal Case no. 1050 of 2022 (State vs. Rahul Kumar) in Case Crime no. 537 of 2020 under Section 420 IPC & 63 Copyright Act, PS- T.P.Nagar, District Meerut is hereby quashed and set aside only in respect of applicant herein. 9. The application u/s 528 BNSS stands allowed. 10. However, the authorities/opposite party no.2 are at liberty to proceed against applicant, if required, under the relevant sections of relevant Act. September 4, 2025 Shaswat NA528 No. 32345 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad