Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes FIR Under Copyright Act for Fake Branded Garments; Holds Clothing Is Not a ‘Work’ Protected by Copyright
Case Name: Davinder Pal Bakshi v. State of Haryana and Another
Date of Decision: 23 January 2026
Citation: CRM-M-11221-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR, chargesheet, order framing charges and all consequential proceedings, holding that garments or cloth do not fall within the categories of “works” enumerated under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Court held that sale or manufacture of spurious branded garments may attract remedies under trademark law or passing-off principles, but prosecution under Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act is legally unsustainable.
Summary: The petitioner, proprietor of Bakshi Enterprises, approached the High Court seeking quashing of FIR No. 0453 dated 30.10.2021 registered at Police Station Ambala City under Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The FIR was lodged on the complaint of an authorised representative of Raymond Company, alleging that the petitioner was manufacturing and selling spurious garments falsely represented as original Raymond products.
During investigation, certain garments allegedly bearing the Raymond brand were recovered from the petitioner’s premises. The petitioner was arrested, released on bail, and a challan was presented. The trial Court framed charges under Section 51 read with Section 63 of the Act, leading to the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The principal contention of the petitioner was that copyright subsists only in works enumerated under Section 13 of the Act, namely literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works, cinematograph films and sound recordings. It was argued that cloth, fabric or garments do not constitute a copyrightable “work”, and therefore the very foundation of the FIR was legally flawed. At best, the allegations could fall within the domain of trademark infringement, not copyright violation.
The State opposed the petition, arguing that spurious goods branded as Raymond were recovered and that the trial was already underway after framing of charges.
The High Court examined Section 13 of the Copyright Act in detail and held that garments or clothing do not fall within any protected class of works under the Act. Relying on a consistent line of precedents including Deepak v. State of Haryana (2023) and Arun Kumar v. State of Punjab (2024), the Court reiterated that criminal prosecution under the Copyright Act for fake branded garments is not maintainable. The Court observed that allowing such proceedings to continue would amount to abuse of the criminal process.
Decision: The petition was allowed. The FIR, the final report under Section 173 CrPC, the order framing charges and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.