Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishal Sakhla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25605
1 MCRC-26737-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 26737 of 2023
VISHAL SAKHLA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Dinesh Savita - Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for the respondent [R-2].
Heard on : 08/10/2025
Pronounced on : 16/10/2025
ORDER
The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of FIR dated
22.05.2023 bearing Crime No.285/2023 registered at Police Station Thatipur,
District Gwalior for offences punishable under Section 63 of the Copyright
Act, 1957 and Section 33EEC of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and
further proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof.
2. The brief facts, as stated in the petition, are that petitioner No.3,
Bharat Singh Kushwah, is engaged in the business of sale of Ayurvedic
products under the name and style of Om Shri Hari Vishnu Ayurvedic Utpad.
He holds a valid certificate of Shop Establishment issued by the competent
authority under the MP Shop and Establishment Act, 1958, registration under
the Food Safety Act from the Food and Drugs Administration Department,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25605
2 MCRC-26737-2023
M.P., and registration under the GST Act. His business also falls within the
purview of the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
Development Act, 2006. It is further stated that he has applied for
registration of trademark with the competent authority. The petitioners assert
that they are engaged in the retail sale of Ayurvedic products of reputed
brands like Patanjali, Dabur and Himalaya and were in the process of
starting their own line of proprietary medicines as defined under Section 2(h)
of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The products seized by the authorities
were allegedly only samples kept for marketing purposes and not for sale,
and the seizure was carried out illegally to falsely implicate the petitioners.
3. It is further stated that on 21.05.2023, Manoj Sharma, claiming to be
the Director of M Satyam Pharmacy, called petitioner No.1 to meet him.
When petitioner No.1 went to meet him, Manoj Sharma along with Akash
Sharma, two others and some police personnel allegedly took away his
mobile phone, abused and threatened him, and took him to Police Station
Thatipur. Thereafter, they proceeded to the shop of petitioner No.3 at Cosmo
Tower, Janakganj, Gwalior, forcibly entered the premises and took away a
bunch of medicines. Subsequently, they went to the godown of petitioner
No.3 at Shashi Apartment, Fruit Mandi, Gwalior, locked the same, and later
sealed it after allegedly conducting sampling in the absence of the
petitioners. An FIR was thereafter lodged at 12:17 AM on the basis of a
complaint made by Manoj Sharma alleging that one person was found selling
products deceptively similar to the products of M Satyam Pharmacy. Seizure
of goods and registration of FIR followed thereafter.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25605
3 MCRC-26737-2023
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the offences
under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Section 33EEC of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act cannot be invoked against petitioner Nos.1 and 2, as they are
neither the manufacturer nor the authorized selling agents. It is contended
that the entire process of search and seizure was contrary to Sections 22 and
23 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which vests such powers exclusively in
the Drug Inspector, and the mandatory procedures prescribed therein were
not complied with. No signatures were obtained from the petitioners during
the search and seizure process, rendering the entire proceedings illegal and
vitiated in law. Reliance is placed on Section 33M of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act to contend that no prosecution under Chapter IV of the Act
can be initiated except by an Inspector with the previous sanction of the
competent authority and, therefore, the police had no jurisdiction to register
the present FIR. It is further argued that there is no registered copyright of M
Satyam Pharmacy and therefore, no offence under Section 63 of the
Copyright Act can be made out. It is also submitted that the FIR is a result of
malicious prosecution at the behest of Manoj Sharma and deserves to be
quashed in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State
of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition and
supported the action of the police authorities in registering the FIR. It is
submitted that the FIR contains specific allegations which disclose the
commission of cognizable offences. Since the FIR also involves an offence
under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, which is cognizable in nature, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25605
4 MCRC-26737-2023
police was within its jurisdiction to register and investigate the case. It is
further contended that Section 32(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act permits
investigation by the police if the act complained of constitutes a cognizable
offence under any other law. Therefore, the registration of the FIR cannot be
said to be illegal.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the objections raised by the
petitioners with respect to procedural lapses in search and seizure and other
factual controversies are matters of investigation and trial and cannot be
adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Since the FIR discloses prima facie commission of offences, no
case for quashment is made out.
7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has placed reliance
on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in K.C. Bokadia (Shri) and Another
vs. Shri Dinesh Chandra Dubey, (1999) 1 MPLJ 33, to submit that
registration of copyright is not mandatory for availing civil or criminal
remedies for its breach. Copyright arises from authorship and not from
registration. Certified copies of entries in the register are only prima facie
evidence and are not conclusive. Even in the absence of registration, civil or
criminal remedies are available. He has also placed reliance on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/S Knit Pro International vs. The State of
NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 505, wherein it has been held that an
offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is cognizable since it is
punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years. As per Part
II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C., if an offence is punishable with
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25605
5 MCRC-26737-2023
imprisonment for three years and upwards but less than seven years, the
offence is cognizable.
8. It is further submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma, (2021) 12 SCC
674 , there is no bar on the police to investigate and prosecute a person if he
has committed an offence under any other cognizable law. Since the present
FIR has also been registered under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, which is
a cognizable offence, the police authorities have rightly exercised their
jurisdiction.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. On a perusal of the FIR, it is evident that the allegations disclose
commission of a cognizable offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act.
The question whether the petitioners are guilty of the alleged offences is a
matter of investigation and trial and cannot be determined in proceedings
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The contention of the
petitioners regarding non-registration of copyright also cannot be accepted in
view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Full Bench of this Court in
K.C. Bokadia (Shri) (supra), which clearly holds that registration is not a
precondition for initiating criminal proceedings under the Copyright Act. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/S Knit Pro International (supra) has
categorically held that an offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is
cognizable, and therefore, the police was competent to register and
investigate the FIR.
11. As regards the contention of the petitioners on the jurisdiction of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25605
6 MCRC-26737-2023
the police to register FIR under Section 33EEC of the Drugs and Cosmetics
Act, it is pertinent to note that the FIR also involves an offence under Section
63 of the Copyright Act, which is cognizable. In view of the law laid down
in Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra), there is no legal bar on the police to
investigate and prosecute an accused if he has committed a cognizable
offence under any other law. Section 32(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act
itself recognizes such power. Therefore, no illegality can be attributed to the
action of the police in registering the FIR.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal
(supra) has laid down the principles for exercise of inherent powers to quash
an FIR. Applying those principles to the facts of the present case, it cannot
be said that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose any offence or that the
FIR has been lodged with mala fide intent so as to warrant interference under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no ground to
exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to quash the FIR.
14. The petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
