Quashing Criminal Proceedings for Non-Compliance of Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act 1999
Introduction: The case of Sri Raghunath Ananda Rokhade v. The State of Karnataka, adjudicated by the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad, represents a pivotal judicial examination of procedural compliance in intellectual property-related criminal proceedings. Heard under Criminal Petition No. 102679 of 2025, this case involves a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking to quash a charge sheet and related proceedings against the petitioner for alleged offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 65 and 68 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The core issue revolves around the misapplication of the Copyright Act instead of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the procedural irregularity of a police search conducted without requisite authority.
Factual Background: Sri Raghunath Ananda Rokhade, a 56-year-old businessman from Pune, Maharashtra, was named as accused number 5 in a criminal case initiated by the Kudachi Police in Raibag, Belagavi District, Karnataka. The allegations stemmed from the petitioner’s alleged involvement in selling counterfeit goods, specifically 900 shirts, 200 pants, 30 T-shirts bearing the label "Allen Solly," 20 shirts of "Van Heusen," 40 shirts of "Peter England," and 30 shirts of "Louis Philippe." These actions were claimed to have caused a financial loss of Rs. 13,50,000 to the respective brand owners. The Kudachi Police filed a charge sheet in C.C. No. 1502/2021, accusing the petitioner of offences under Section 420 of the IPC for cheating and Sections 65 and 68 of the Copyright Act, 1957, for knowingly infringing copyright and possessing infringing copies. The petitioner contended that the allegations pertained to trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, rather than copyright infringement, and that the police investigation, including a search and seizure conducted by a Sub-Inspector, violated the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, which mandates that such actions be performed by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) with the Registrar’s opinion.
Procedural Background: The petitioner filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 528 of BNSS, 2023) before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, seeking to quash the charge sheet and proceedings in C.C. No. 1502/2021 pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Raibag. The petition was argued on the grounds that the charges under the Copyright Act were inapplicable, as the allegations related to trademark infringement, and that the investigation was procedurally flawed due to non-compliance with Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act. The case was heard by Justice Venkatesh Naik T, with Shri Ramachandra A. Mali representing the petitioner and Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, the High Court Government Pleader, representing the State. The court delivered its oral order on 24 July 2025, relying on prior precedents to address the legal issues raised.
Core Dispute: The central issue in this case is whether the charge sheet and proceedings in C.C. No. 1502/2021 should be quashed due to the misapplication of the Copyright Act, 1957, instead of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the procedural irregularity of a search and seizure conducted by a Sub-Inspector, contrary to the requirement under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act. The petitioner argued that the allegations of selling counterfeit branded goods constituted offences under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, which address the application of false trademarks and the sale of goods with such marks, rather than copyright infringement under Sections 65 and 68 of the Copyright Act. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the investigation was vitiated because the search and seizure were conducted by an officer below the rank of DSP without obtaining the Registrar’s opinion, rendering the proceedings unlawful. The State did not dispute that the allegations aligned with trademark offences and conceded that the procedural requirements were not met. The dispute thus hinged on the correct legal framework for the alleged offences and the validity of the investigation process.
Discussion on Judgments: The petitioner relied on two prior decisions of coordinate benches of the Karnataka High Court to support his case. In Criminal Petition No. 2080/2023, disposed of on 19 June 2024, the court addressed a similar issue, holding that a complaint registered without prior permission under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, which requires a DSP or equivalent officer to conduct searches and seizures with the Registrar’s opinion, was contrary to law and liable to be quashed. Similarly, in Criminal Petition No. 6096/2016, disposed of on 28 February 2019, the court quashed an FIR and proceedings in C.C. No. 15917/2016, finding that allegations of selling counterfeit branded goods (including Allen Solly, Van Heusen, Peter England, and Louis Philippe products) constituted offences under Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act, not under Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act. The court in that case noted that the search and seizure by a Sub-Inspector violated Section 115(4), and the absence of consumer complaints negated the applicability of Section 420 of the IPC for cheating. These judgments were cited to argue that the present case involved identical issues of misapplied legal provisions and procedural non-compliance, warranting quashing of the proceedings.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge: Justice Venkatesh Naik T delivered a concise yet robust oral order, focusing on the legal and procedural flaws in the prosecution’s case. The court first addressed the applicability of the Copyright Act, noting that Section 13(1) limits copyright protection to original literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works, cinematograph films, and sound recordings. The allegations against the petitioner involved selling goods with counterfeit brand labels, which did not involve claiming copyright or producing works under the Copyright Act but rather implicated false trademark use under Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which prescribes penalties for selling goods with false trademarks or descriptions. The court found that the prosecution’s reliance on Sections 65 and 68 of the Copyright Act was misplaced, as the facts did not satisfy the ingredients of copyright infringement, such as reproducing or distributing protected works.
The court then examined the procedural issue under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, which mandates that searches and seizures for trademark offences be conducted by a police officer not below the rank of DSP, with the Registrar’s opinion. The search in this case, conducted by a Sub-Inspector, violated this requirement, rendering the investigation and subsequent charge sheet legally invalid. The court also noted the absence of complaints from consumers or affected parties to support the charge of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC, further undermining the prosecution’s case. Relying on the precedents in Criminal Petition No. 2080/2023 and Criminal Petition No. 6096/2016, the court concluded that the proceedings were vitiated by both the incorrect application of the Copyright Act and the failure to comply with the Trade Marks Act’s procedural mandates, justifying the quashing of the charge sheet and proceedings.
Final Decision: On 24 July 2025, the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad allowed Criminal Petition No. 102679 of 2025, quashing the charge sheet and entire proceedings in C.C. No. 1502/2021 pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Raibag, insofar as they related to the petitioner, Sri Raghunath Ananda Rokhade. The court held that the charges under Section 420 of the IPC and Sections 65 and 68 of the Copyright Act, 1957, were inapplicable, and the investigation was procedurally flawed due to non-compliance with Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Law Settled in This Case: This case reinforces the distinction between trademark and copyright offences, clarifying that allegations of selling counterfeit goods with false brand labels fall under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, rather than the Copyright Act, 1957, unless the accused is claiming or infringing copyright in original works. It underscores the mandatory procedural requirement under Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, which restricts search and seizure operations for trademark offences to police officers of DSP rank or above, with the Registrar’s opinion, and holds that non-compliance vitiates the investigation and subsequent proceedings. The judgment also affirms that the absence of consumer complaints or evidence of deceit negates the applicability of Section 420 of the IPC in such cases. By quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 528 of BNSS), the case highlights the court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process when charges are misapplied or investigations are procedurally defective, ensuring fair administration of justice in intellectual property disputes.
Case Title: Sri Raghunath Ananda Rokhade Vs. The State of Karnataka
Date of Order: 24 July 2025
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 102679 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC-D:9134
Name of Court: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Name of Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Venkatesh Naik T
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
