Sanjeev Gaur Vs The State of Assam

Gauhati High Court Upholds Cognizance in Intellectual Property Theft Dispute Involving Surgical Glove Manufacturing Machines

Case Title: Sanjeev Gaur & Anr. v. State of Assam & Anr.

Case No.: Crl.Pet./1526/2024

Decided on: 23.04.2026

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Pranjal Das

In a significant ruling concerning territorial jurisdiction and prima facie case in intellectual property-related offences, the Gauhati High Court dismissed a petition under Section 528/529 BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of criminal proceedings in CR Case No. 40 of 2024.

Background

The informant, M/s Anondita Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., alleged that the petitioners — Sanjeev Gaur (petitioner No. 1) and Ranjit Kumar Yadav (petitioner No. 2, a former employee) — conspired to steal the design of an indigenously developed machine used for manufacturing surgical gloves. The machine was conceptualized in 2013, became operational in October 2013, and its design was registered under the Designs Act, 2002 on 18.04.2016. The company claimed the machine was assembled in Noida and later shifted to its factory in Village Kurshala, Paneri, Kamrup (under Boko Police Station jurisdiction) in 2015.

It was alleged that petitioner No. 2, while working as Assistant Production Manager till July 2019 at the Assam factory, had access to the confidential design and shared it with petitioner No. 1 after being induced with better pay and bribes. Petitioner No. 2 later joined petitioner No. 1’s company, M/s Swear Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., at Dholpur, Rajasthan, where an allegedly identical machine was manufactured, causing wrongful loss to the informant and gain to the petitioners.

An initial FIR (Boko P.S. Case No. 826/2021) under Sections 120(B), 408, 420 IPC read with Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act was registered. However, the police filed a final report (FR No. 168/2023) citing insufficient evidence. The informant then filed a protest petition and a private complaint dated 28.06.2024, registered as CR Case No. 40/2024.

Proceedings Before the Magistrate

The learned JMFC, Boko, examined the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and three witnesses (CW1–CW3) under Section 202 CrPC. The witnesses consistently deposed about petitioner No. 2’s involvement in the design process, his communications with petitioner No. 1 regarding the machine, and the identical nature of the machine observed at the Rajasthan factory. On 21.08.2024, the Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 408, 420, 120(B) IPC read with Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, and issued summons.

High Court’s Decision

The petitioners contended that:

The complaint was malicious and stemmed from business rivalry.

The Boko court lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the alleged copied machine was operating in Rajasthan.

No prima facie case existed, especially after the police final report.

Justice Pranjal Das rejected both grounds. On territorial jurisdiction, the Court held that part of the offence (design theft and access to the machine) occurred within the jurisdiction of Boko Police Station in Assam, where the informant’s machine operated and the former employee had worked. Relying on Sections 177 and 178 CrPC (corresponding to Sections 197 and 198 BNSS), the Court ruled that even if the offence had multiple limbs across jurisdictions, the Boko court had jurisdiction since a part of the cause of action arose there. The decisions in Y. Abraham Ajith (2004) 8 SCC 100 and Bhura Ram (2008) 11 SCC 103 were distinguished, as those cases involved no part of the offence in the concerned jurisdiction.

On merits, the Court found that the complainant and witnesses’ statements disclosed a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy, breach of trust, cheating, and IP violations. The Magistrate had applied his mind and properly scrutinized the evidence before taking cognizance, in line with the principles laid down in Sujoy Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand (SLP (Crl) No. 9452 of 2025). The police final report did not bar the private complaint.

Outcome

The High Court upheld the cognizance order dated 21.08.2024 and dismissed the petition. The stay on proceedings was vacated.

This judgment reaffirms that in cases involving multi-jurisdictional economic and IP offences, courts can exercise jurisdiction where any part of the offence occurs, and private complaints can proceed even after a police closure report if sufficient material discloses a prima facie case.

=====

Factual and Procedural Background

A company called M/s Anondita Healthcare Pvt Ltd was making surgical gloves using a special machine they had designed themselves in their factory near Boko in Assam. They alleged that one of their former employees, Ranjit Kumar Yadav, who had worked closely with the machine and knew all its details, secretly shared the design with another businessman named Sanjeev Gaur. Gaur then started producing very similar machines in his factory in Dholpur, Rajasthan, through his company Swear Healthcare. The company claimed this caused them heavy losses. They first filed a police complaint in Assam in 2021, but after investigation the police submitted a final report saying there was not enough evidence. Not satisfied, the company filed a private complaint before the local magistrate in Boko in 2024. The magistrate heard the company owner and three witnesses who described how the employee had access to the design, spoke about making similar machines for Gaur, and how an identical machine was later seen in Rajasthan. Based on these statements, the magistrate took cognizance of offences like cheating, criminal conspiracy, breach of trust, and violations related to copyright and trademarks, and issued summons to both men.

Dispute in Question

The petitioners Sanjeev Gaur and Ranjit Kumar Yadav approached the Gauhati High Court to get the entire criminal case quashed. They argued that the case was nothing but a business rivalry turned into a criminal matter, that the police had already found no evidence, and most importantly that the court in Assam had no jurisdiction because the accused were operating their machines in Rajasthan, far away from Assam. They also said there was no strong enough case to even summon them.

Judgement with Complete Citation their Context Referred, Reasoning and Decision of Court

Justice Pranjal Das of the Gauhati High Court carefully examined the matter and delivered the judgment on 23 April 2026 in the case of Sanjeev Gaur and Anr. versus The State of Assam and Anr. The court referred to the landmark Supreme Court decisions on territorial jurisdiction such as Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai (2004) 8 SCC 100 and Bhura Ram & Ors Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr (2008) 11 SCC 103, which explain that a court has jurisdiction only if part of the offence has occurred within its area. The court also relied on the recent Supreme Court ruling in Sujoy Ghosh Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr (SLP (Crl) No. 9452 of 2025), which lays down clear principles that summoning an accused is a serious step and the magistrate must apply his mind to see if a prima facie offence is made out from the complaint and witness statements.

The High Court reasoned that even though the copied machines were being used in Rajasthan, a significant part of the alleged offence – including the development and operation of the original machine, the employee’s access to its confidential design while working in the Assam factory, and the alleged stealing of that design – had taken place within the jurisdiction of the Boko court in Assam. Therefore, under the rules of territorial jurisdiction, the local magistrate had the power to hear the case. The court further observed that the statements given by the complainant and the three witnesses were consistent and detailed enough to show a basic case of wrongdoing against the petitioners. The magistrate had properly examined the material before taking cognizance and issuing summons, and the earlier police closure report did not prevent the private complaint from proceeding when fresh evidence was placed before the court. Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court upheld the magistrate’s order dated 21 August 2024, dismissed the quashing petition, and vacated the stay on the proceedings.

One Important Legal Point Settled in this Case

Even when the main manufacturing activity or the accused persons are located in another state, a criminal court can still exercise jurisdiction if any important part of the alleged offence, such as the place where the original machine operated or where the design was allegedly stolen, occurred within its local area. This allows cases involving intellectual property theft and business disputes spanning multiple states to be tried where a substantial connection exists.

Case Details: Sanjeev Gaur and Anr. versus The State of Assam and Anr., Order dated 23.04.2026, Case No. Crl.Pet./1526/2024, Gauhati High Court, Honourable Mr. Justice Pranjal Das.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

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

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor