Bacchi Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

### Introduction

The case of Smt. Bacchi Devi vs State of U.P. and Another, adjudicated by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on August 12, 2025, involves a criminal proceeding intertwined with intellectual property law, specifically addressing allegations of copyright and trademark infringement. The applicant, Smt. Bacchi Devi, challenged a summoning order and a charge-sheet related to the sale of counterfeit paint products, raising questions about the applicability of the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), provides a critical examination of the intersection between criminal law and intellectual property rights, offering insights into the legal standards for quashing criminal proceedings in such cases.

### Factual Background

Smt. Bacchi Devi operates Krishna Hardware Paints Centre, a retail paint shop in Shanti Nagar, Bichhiya, Gorakhpur District, where she sells various paint products. The prosecution alleges that on a spot inspection conducted by authorized officers of Asian Paints, a renowned paint manufacturing company, a significant quantity of counterfeit Asian Paints products was discovered at her shop. This led to the registration of Case Crime No. 0395 of 2021 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (cheating) and Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (offences of infringement of copyright and possession of infringing copies). The applicant denies the allegations, claiming that the products were legitimately sourced and that the charges are baseless, prompting her to seek judicial intervention.

### Procedural Background

The case originated with the filing of a First Information Report (FIR) leading to Case Crime No. 0395 of 2021, followed by the submission of charge-sheet No. 1/2021 by the police. Based on this, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, issued a summoning order dated April 29, 2022, in Case No. 10849 of 2022, directing the applicant to face trial. Dissatisfied with these proceedings, Smt. Bacchi Devi filed Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 6400 of 2025 before the Allahabad High Court, seeking to quash the summoning order and the charge-sheet. The matter was heard with the assistance of an Amicus Curiae, Shri Satyaveer Singh, and the Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) for the State, with the court reserving its judgment and pronouncing it on August 12, 2025, after a thorough review of the record.

### Core Dispute

The central issue is whether the summoning order and charge-sheet against Smt. Bacchi Devi should be quashed, given the allegations of selling counterfeit Asian Paints products. The dispute focuses on the legal validity of the charges under Section 420 IPC and Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957, particularly whether the evidence supports a prima facie case of copyright infringement or if the matter pertains more appropriately to trademark violation, which was not charged. The applicant argues that the prosecution’s case lacks substance and that the invocation of copyright law is misplaced, while the State contends that the discovery of counterfeit goods justifies the criminal proceedings, necessitating a trial.

### Discussion on Judgments

The parties and court referenced several judicial precedents to support their positions. The applicant relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, to argue that criminal proceedings can be quashed if they are vexatious or lack prima facie evidence, supporting her plea for quashing. She also cited Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259, to assert that vague allegations do not sustain a charge under Section 420 IPC. The State did not cite specific judgments but implied reliance on general principles from Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388, regarding the court’s reluctance to interfere with criminal proceedings at an early stage. The court drew on S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar, (2001) 5 SCC 690, to emphasize the need for clear evidence of dishonest intent in cheating cases, and referenced Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association, AIR 1977 SC 1443, to clarify the scope of copyright infringement, influencing the judicial reasoning.

### Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge

Justice Vinod Diwakar conducted a meticulous review of the case record, focusing on the nature of the evidence and the legal provisions invoked. The judge noted that the inspection report and seizure of alleged counterfeit paints formed the basis of the prosecution’s case, but found the linkage to copyright infringement under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957, to be tenuous, as the dispute appeared to center on trademark counterfeiting rather than reproduction of copyrighted material. The court observed that Section 420 IPC requires proof of fraudulent intent, which was not sufficiently established at the summoning stage. The judge concluded that the charges were prima facie unsustainable without further evidence, and continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process, particularly given the mismatch between the alleged offence and the legal framework applied.

### Final Decision

The High Court allowed Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 6400 of 2025, quashing the summoning order dated April 29, 2022, and charge-sheet No. 1/2021 in Case Crime No. 0395 of 2021. The court set aside the proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, in Case No. 10849 of 2022, relieving Smt. Bacchi Devi from facing trial under the impugned charges. The judgment was pronounced on August 12, 2025, with the court directing the closure of the matter, subject to any future lawful action based on additional evidence.

### Law Settled in This Case

This judgment establishes that criminal proceedings under the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860, can be quashed if the charges are based on a misapplication of law or lack prima facie evidence of the alleged offence. It clarifies that the sale of counterfeit goods primarily implicates trademark law rather than copyright, unless specific reproduction of copyrighted material is proven. The decision reinforces the High Court’s power under Section 528 BNSS to intervene when proceedings are vexatious or legally unsustainable, setting a precedent for scrutinizing the appropriateness of charges in intellectual property-related criminal cases.

### Case Details

Case Title: Smt. Bacchi Devi vs State of U.P. and Another  

Date of Order: 12 August, 2025  

Case Number: Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 6400 of 2025  

Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:136034  

Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad  

Name of Judge: Vinod Diwakar

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Here are various suitable titles for this article for publication in a Law Journal:  

1. Quashing Criminal Proceedings in IP Cases: The Bacchi Devi Judgment  

2. Copyright vs. Trademark in Counterfeiting: Insights from Allahabad High Court  

3. Misapplication of Law: Analyzing Smt. Bacchi Devi v. State of U.P.  

4. Prima Facie Evidence in IP Crimes: The Bacchi Devi Case Study  

5. Section 528 BNSS and IP Disputes: Lessons from the Allahabad Ruling  

6. Counterfeit Goods and Criminal Law: The Bacchi Devi Decision Explored  

7. Judicial Intervention in Vexatious IP Prosecutions: The 2025 Precedent  

8. Balancing IP Protection and Fair Trial: The Bacchi Devi v. State Case