Mohan Lal Daruka vs. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Mohan Lal Daruka, proprietor of Mahavir Syndicate, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR registered at Ratanpur Police Station (Case No. 52 of 2025) dated June 19, 2025. The FIR was filed based on a complaint by Manish Gupta, an investigator for M/s ASSURE IP PROTECTION AGENCY, acting on behalf of their client, M/s RAMESH STEEL PRODUCTS (MALHOTRA PIPES). The complaint alleged that the petitioner was selling counterfeit pipes under the brand name "MALHOTRA" and "SUPER MALHOTRA". During a police raid on the petitioner's shop, two fake "SUPER MALHOTRA" pipes were seized, along with one original "MALHOTRA" pipe presented by the informant. The petitioner's GST number was recorded as 10ACTPD2491D1ZZ. The FIR was lodged under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Sections 103 and 104 of the Trademarks Act, 1999.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's application for quashing the FIR was not maintainable at the current stage. The Court observed that the petitioner was seeking to quash the FIR based on their defence, which is not permissible in law. The Court reasoned that the stage of quashing an FIR is generally for cases where the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not constitute a cognizable offence, or where the FIR is demonstrably malicious or an abuse of process. In this case, the allegations, if true, would constitute offences under the Copyright Act and Trademarks Act. Therefore, the appropriate course of action for the petitioner was to raise all their grounds after the investigation is concluded and a charge-sheet is filed. The Court did not decide on the merits of the allegations or the petitioner's defence.
Key Issues
1. Whether the FIR registered under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Sections 103 and 104 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, is liable to be quashed based on the defence of the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the FIR should be quashed, implying that their actions did not constitute an offence under the cited provisions, and that the allegations were unfounded. The State, through its counsel, contended that the FIR was registered based on information received regarding the sale of counterfeit goods, and that the petitioner's defence was a matter to be raised after the conclusion of the investigation. The Court was asked to decide if the writ jurisdiction was appropriate for quashing an FIR at this stage based on the petitioner's defence.
Sections Cited
Section 63, Section 65, Section 103, Section 104
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 2 04-08-2025 Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The present application has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. of Ratanpur Police Station Case No.- 52 of 2025, dated 19.06.2025, pending in the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Section 103 and 104 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. 3. As per the prosecution case, one Manish Gupta who is working as an investigator in M/s ASSURE IP PROTECTION AGENCY. Its authorized client company, 2/3 namely, M/s RAMESH STEEL PRODUCTS (MALHOTRA PIPES) which manufactures pipes and other goods with a brand name “MALHOTRA”, had authorized the informant to take legal actions against those who were manufacturing and selling their fake goods. The informant upon receiving a secret information that fake pipes of SUPER MALHOTRA in the name of MALHOTRA were being sold in Begusarai market, came to Begusarai and enquired about the same, since the client company of the informant was facing financial loss due to sale of such fake pipes. Upon such enquiry he got information that fake pipes of SUPER MALHOTRA are being sold from a secret shop in the name of MALHOTRA. He gave this information in writing at Ratanpur police station on the same day i.e 19.06.2025. Thereafter, the police officials raided the secret shop and introduced themselves to the shopkeeper and showed him all the papers related to the client company and asked the shopkeeper for his name and address. The shopkeeper introduced himself as Mohanlal Daruka, permanent address Patel Chowk Main Road, Nauranga, Ward No. 31, Police Station Nagar, District Begusarai. The GST number of the board installed in the shop was 10ACTPD2491D1ZZ. The police officials asked for a MALHOTRA pipe from the shopkeeper, 3/3 and the same had the name of SUPER MALHOTRA written on it, which is manufactured by the client company of the informant. On inspection, the pipe obtained from the shop was found to be fake. Two (02) fake SUPER MALHOTRA pipes were seized from the shop and one (01) original MALHOTRA pipe (sample) of the client company brought by the informant was presented before the police officer, which was duly seized after preparing a presentation cum seizure list and the shopkeeper was informed that his actions constitute an offence under the aforementioned sections.
The petitioner prays for quashing of the FIR on the basis of his defence which is not permissible in law.
This application is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the grounds, if after
conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet is submitted against him.
With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed as withdrawn.
P. Kumar (Sandeep Kumar, J) U T
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.