Framing Charges in Trademark Infringement Cases
Introduction:This case study examines a set of criminal revision petitions adjudicated by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior, addressing the contentious issue of framing charges in a trademark and copyright infringement case involving the misuse of the brand "Bhatia Masale." The petitions, arising from a common order dated February 24, 2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vijaypur, involve challenges by the accused against the charges framed under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Copyright Act, 1957, as well as a plea by the complainant to include additional charges.
Factual Background: The complainant, Rajkumar Bhatia, operates a business under the brand "Bhatia Masale" and lodged a written complaint with the Station House Officer (SHO) in Veerpur, alleging that Gopal Soni was misusing his brand, trademark, and copyrights by selling counterfeit "Bhatia Masale" products, thereby misleading the public and damaging the complainant's goodwill. Following the investigation, based on a memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act provided by Gopal Soni, additional individuals—Rakesh Singhal, Rajeev Agrawal, and Bobby Goyal—were implicated as co-accused. The investigation revealed that the accused had fabricated packaging materials mimicking "Bhatia Masale," and samples seized were found to be sub-standard and unsafe by Cali Labs Private Limited. Consequently, a charge-sheet was filed, leading to the framing of charges against the accused for offenses including cheating, forgery, and violations of intellectual property laws.
Procedural Background:The case originated from a sessions trial (No. 44/2024) before the Additional Sessions Judge, Vijaypur, District Sheopur, where charges were framed on February 24, 2025, under Sections 420, 420/34, 468, 468/34, 469, 469/34, 471, 471/34, 473, 473/34, and 201 of the IPC, along with Sections 102(2)(B)/103(a) and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Aggrieved by this order, Rajeev Agrawal (CRR No. 1519/2025) and Gopal and others (CRR No. 1653/2025) filed criminal revision petitions, seeking discharge and arguing that the trial court erred in framing charges due to insufficient prima facie evidence. Concurrently, the complainant, Rajkumar Bhatia (CRR No. 1273/2025), filed a revision petition challenging the trial court's decision to drop charges under Sections 272, 273, and 467 of the IPC, requesting their inclusion based on evidence gathered during the investigation. The High Court heard all three petitions together, given their common origin, and delivered a consolidated order on August 5, 2025.
Core Dispute: The central dispute in these revision petitions revolved around the propriety of the trial court's order on framing charges.
The accused petitioners contended that the charge-sheet lacked sufficient prima facie evidence to justify charges, particularly since no incriminating articles were recovered from their possession, and they were not named in the initial FIR. They argued that the confessional statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was inadmissible and that the essential ingredients for the charged offenses, such as cheating or forgery, were absent.
Conversely, the complainant argued that the trial court erred in excluding charges under Sections 272, 273, and 467 of the IPC, asserting that evidence of forged packaging and sub-standard products supported these charges. The court was tasked with determining whether the trial court correctly assessed the prima facie evidence at the charge-framing stage and whether additional charges under Section 467 were warranted.
Discussion on Judgments: The court and parties relied on several judicial precedents to frame their arguments. The accused petitioners cited Vikram Kakati v. The State of Assam, CRA No. 1140/2022, decided by the Supreme Court on August 4, 2022, to support their plea for discharge. However, the court found this precedent inapplicable, as no application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) had been filed by the petitioners, rendering the cited judgment irrelevant to the revision petitions. The court, on its own, referred to two Supreme Court decisions to guide its analysis of the charge-framing stage. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605, the Supreme Court held that at the charge-framing stage, the court must evaluate the material and documents to ascertain if the facts, taken at face value, disclose the ingredients of the alleged offenses, without accepting the prosecution's claims as gospel truth or aiming to determine the likelihood of conviction. Similarly, in Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam and others, 2020 CRLJ 2092, the Supreme Court emphasized that the trial court is not required to conduct an elaborate inquiry at this stage, and only a prima facie case needs to be established. These precedents shaped the court's approach to assessing the sufficiency of evidence for framing charges.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:The judge commenced by addressing the complainant's revision petition (CRR No. 1273/2025) seeking additional charges under Sections 272, 273, and 467 of the IPC. For Section 467, which pertains to forgery of valuable securities or documents facilitating property transfer, the court noted that the investigation revealed prima facie evidence of the accused fabricating packaging materials in the name of "Bhatia Masale," which could be used for delivering movable property. The test report from Cali Labs confirming the sub-standard and unsafe nature of the seized samples further supported this finding. The judge concluded that the trial court erred in omitting the charge under Section 467, as sufficient evidence existed to frame it. However, for Sections 272 and 273, which deal with adulteration and sale of noxious food or drink, the court found no prima facie evidence of the necessary ingredients, upholding the trial court's decision to exclude these charges. Turning to the accused's revision petitions (CRR Nos. 1519/2025 and 1653/2025), the judge applied the principles from Chitresh Kumar Chopra and Bhawna Bai, emphasizing that the charge-framing stage requires only a prima facie assessment of evidence, not a detailed evaluation of the defense. The charge-sheet, supported by the test report and other documents, provided sufficient grounds to presume the accused committed the charged offenses. The judge rejected the accused's contentions regarding the inadmissibility of the Section 27 statement and lack of recovery, noting that such defenses could only be examined after the prosecution presented its evidence during trial. The limited scope of inquiry at this stage, as guided by Supreme Court precedents, justified upholding the trial court's framing of charges.
Final Decision: The High Court partly allowed Criminal Revision No. 1273/2025 filed by Rajkumar Bhatia, directing the trial court to frame an additional charge under Section 467 of the IPC against the accused, based on prima facie evidence of forgery. However, it dismissed the request to include charges under Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC due to insufficient evidence. The revision petitions filed by Rajeev Agrawal (CRR No. 1519/2025) and Gopal and others (CRR No. 1653/2025) were dismissed, affirming the trial court's order framing charges under Sections 420, 420/34, 468, 468/34, 469, 469/34, 471, 471/34, 473, 473/34, and 201 of the IPC, and Sections 102(2)(B)/103(a), 104 of the Trade Marks Act, and Section 63 of the Copyright Act. The court clarified that the trial court should conduct the trial independently, without being influenced by the High Court's observations, and in accordance with the law.
Law Settled in This Case: This case reinforces the principle that at the charge-framing stage in a criminal trial, the court's role is confined to assessing whether prima facie evidence exists to presume the accused committed the alleged offenses, without delving into the merits of the defense or conducting an elaborate inquiry. It affirms the applicability of this principle in intellectual property disputes involving trademark and copyright violations, where evidence such as forged packaging and sub-standard products can justify charges under the IPC and relevant statutes. The decision clarifies that charges under Section 467 of the IPC for forgery can be framed when investigation reveals fabrication of materials intended for property delivery, even if not explicitly named in the initial complaint. Additionally, it underscores that defenses, such as the inadmissibility of confessional statements or lack of recovery, are to be evaluated during trial, not at the preliminary stage, aligning with Supreme Court precedents on the limited scope of charge-framing inquiries.
Case Title: Rajeev Agrawal Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
Date of Order: 05.08.2025
Case Number: CRR No. 1519/2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-GWL:16599
Name of Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Anil Verma, J.
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
