Case Title: Vishal Sakhla and Others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case Number: Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 26737 of 2023
Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-GWL:25605
Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench
Date of Order: Pronounced on 16 October 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Shri Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke
Factual Background
The petitioners, led by Vishal Sakhla, sought quashing of an FIR registered on 22 May 2023 as Crime No. 285/2023 at Police Station Thatipur, Gwalior. The FIR alleged offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 33EEC of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The case arose from a dispute concerning Ayurvedic medicines sold under the banner “Om Shri Hari Vishnu Ayurvedic Utpad.”
Petitioner No. 3, Bharat Singh Kushwah, operated a duly registered Ayurvedic products business, possessing valid certifications under the M.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1958, Food Safety and Standards Act, GST Act, and MSME Act, 2006. The petitioners also claimed to have applied for trademark registration for their products. They contended that the seized items were mere display samples meant for marketing, not for sale, and that the seizure itself was illegal.
According to the petitioners, the trouble began on 21 May 2023 when Manoj Sharma, claiming to be the Director of M. Satyam Pharmacy, summoned petitioner No. 1. Upon arrival, Manoj Sharma allegedly, along with his associates and some police officials, took away the petitioner’s mobile phone, abused and threatened him, and took him to the police station. Thereafter, the group allegedly entered the petitioner’s shop and warehouse forcibly, seized Ayurvedic goods, and sealed the godown after conducting a supposed sampling process without the petitioners’ presence. Based on Manoj Sharma’s complaint that deceptive or duplicate goods of M. Satyam Pharmacy were being sold, the FIR was registered past midnight.
Procedural Details
The petitioners approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings. They argued that both the Copyright Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act provisions had been misapplied and that the entire investigation was illegal, motivated by malice, and procedurally defective.
The matter was heard on 8 October 2025 and judgment was reserved, later pronounced on 16 October 2025.
Nature of Dispute
The central issue revolved around whether the FIR and investigation were lawful and maintainable. The petitioners challenged the FIR on two main grounds:
Jurisdictional illegality: They contended that only a Drug Inspector could conduct search, seizure, and prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Therefore, the police had no authority to initiate proceedings or register the FIR.
Absence of copyright registration: The petitioners claimed that no registered copyright existed for M. Satyam Pharmacy, and thus no criminal offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act could be invoked.
The State and the complainant opposed the plea, asserting that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and that the police were competent to investigate because Section 63 of the Copyright Act made the offence cognizable. They argued that procedural objections regarding seizure or authorization were matters of evidence to be examined during investigation or trial—not at the stage of quashment.
Court’s Detailed Reasoning
Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke undertook a detailed analysis of the legal position governing the jurisdiction of the police and the nature of offences under both the Copyright Act and Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
The Court began by noting that under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, the offence is punishable with imprisonment up to three years. Referring to M/S Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 505, the Court reaffirmed that offences punishable with imprisonment between three and seven years are cognizable in nature as per Part II of the First Schedule to the Cr.P.C.. Thus, the police had the jurisdiction to register and investigate such offences.
Addressing the argument that copyright registration was essential before alleging infringement, the Court relied on the Full Bench judgment in K.C. Bokadia v. Dinesh Chandra Dubey, (1999) 1 MPLJ 33, which held that copyright arises from authorship and not from registration. The registration merely provides prima facie evidence but is not a condition precedent to the availability of civil or criminal remedies.
On the question of police jurisdiction under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the Court observed that Section 32(3) of the Act allows police intervention where the act constitutes a cognizable offence under any other law. Since the FIR also contained allegations under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, the police were competent to register and investigate it. The Court also referred to Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma, (2021) 12 SCC 674, which recognized the concurrent jurisdiction of the police when a cognizable offence under another statute is disclosed.
The petitioners’ claim that the search and seizure violated Sections 22 and 23 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was considered. The Court noted that alleged procedural lapses or factual controversies, such as improper seizure or sampling, are not grounds for quashing an FIR at the preliminary stage. Such issues must be addressed during investigation and trial.
Furthermore, the Court considered the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, which provides limited grounds for quashing FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C. These grounds include cases where allegations do not disclose any offence, or where proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intentions. Upon applying those tests, the Court found that the FIR clearly disclosed prima facie cognizable offences and could not be quashed.
In conclusion, the Court emphasized that while the petitioners’ grievances might form part of their defence, those cannot be examined at this stage without a complete investigation. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are meant to prevent abuse of process, not to pre-emptively assess the veracity of allegations.
Decision
The High Court held that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, and therefore, the police had full jurisdiction to investigate the case, even though it also involved alleged offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The petitioners’ challenge to the legality of registration, seizure procedure, and police powers was rejected. The Court concluded that no exceptional ground existed to invoke inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Suggested Titles for Legal Research Paper
Police Jurisdiction in Overlapping Statutes: An Analytical Study of Vishal Sakhla v. State of Madhya Pradesh
When Copyright Meets Ayurveda: Judicial Approach to Investigations under Dual Statutes
The Scope of Police Power in Copyright and Drug Regulation Offences: Lessons from the Madhya Pradesh High Court
Unraveling the Cognizable Nature of Copyright Infringement: A Simplified Legal Analysis
Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the Limits of Judicial Intervention: Understanding Vishal Sakhla’s Case
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
