BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on : 29.07.2026

Pronounced on: 05.08.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13640 of 2026

and

Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.13312 & 13743 of 2026

Veerasekar ...Petitioner/Accused

Vs

1. The State of Tamilnadu,

Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

Intellectual Property Right Enforcement Cell (IPREC),

Trichy Police Station,

Trichy.

Crime No. 3/2025 ...1

st

Respondent/Complainant

2. V.Sakthivel ...2

nd

Respondent/Defacto Complainant

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS Act,

to call for the records pertaining to the Final Report in C.C.No.1/2026 pending

on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Pudukottai and quash the same in

so far as the petitioner is concerned.

1/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

For Petitioner : M/s.S.Bageerathan

For Respondents: M/s.P.Samuel Gunasingh

Counsel for State of TN(crl.side) for R1

M/s.N.Dilip Kumar

for M/s.S.A.Ajin Singh for R2

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the accused person in C.C.No.1 of

2026, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pudukottai, seeking to

quash the charge sheet wherein he is charged with the offences under Section

51(b)(i) r/w Section 63(a) of the Copy Right Act, 1957.

2. An artistic work under the title of Sree Manchukonda Nawaab was

registered before the Registrar of the copyright in the year 2022, in the name of

the Sri Chakravarthy Manchukonda. The said Chakravarthy Manchukonda is

the Managing Director of the Manchukonda Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. which is selling

rice and rice products. A sales representative of the Company had lodged a

compliant before the respondent police on 22.01.2025, alleging that the accused

herein has copied the same logo and passing of their products as that of the

products of the defacto complainant's company. In view of the above said fact,

their business has been impacted and fake products are flooded in the market.

2/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Those rice products marketed by the accused are inferior quality and it has

damaged the image of the company. Those products were found to be sold in

and around Pudukottai and the complainant's company traded the same of this

fake Nawaab rice bags to Manchukonda Agrotech Pvt. Ltd., Pudukottai, where

they had stocked and they are selling fake Nawaab rice and cheating the general

public. Based upon the said complaint, an FIR was registered on the same date

and search was conducted in the rice mill owned by the accused. It was found

that the rice bag with logo as Manchukonda Nawab was sold along with the

rice. It is further alleged that from the said godown, 1300 kgs of the rice found

in 26 kgs bags were seized. It is further alleged that 100 empty bags with the

fake logo were also seized. It is further alleged that the fake logo is completely

identical and similar to the copyrighted logo, the accused had caused damage to

the name of Manchukonda Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. and huge financial loss to them.

Based upon the said allegations, the charge sheet has been laid under Section

51(b)(i) and 63(a) of the Copy Right Act. This charge sheet is under challenge

in the present petition.

3. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, artistic

logo is registered in the individual name of one Sri Chakarvarthi Manchukonda.

There is no prove whatsoever that this artistic logo was licensed to

Manchukonda Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. The complaint has been lodged by the sales

3/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

representative of the company. Hence, it is clear that the criminal law has been

set in motion by the person who has no locus standi, whatsoever.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon a

decision of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Crl.A.No.1541 of

2025, contended that the allegation to the copyright infringement cannot be

raised if it is found that the accused persons are selling counterfeit goods

contained in the labels to be printed. Therefore, they did not amount to an

infringement of copyright within the meaning of the copy right Act.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously

contended that the concept of deceptive similarity can be invoked only in case

of violation of Trade Marks Act. Such a concept is not available in the Copy

Right Act. In such circumstances, alleging that the copyrighted logo is almost

similar to the logo printed in the rice bags found in possession of the petitioner

herein, criminal proceedings cannot be initiated under the copyright Act.

6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon Section

63 of the Copy Right Act had contended that unless mens rea is established, the

prosecution under Section 63 cannot be initiated. According to him, there is no

reference about any mens rea or that the petitioner had knowingly used the copy

4/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

righted logo either in the FIR or in the charge sheet and in such circumstances,

the charge sheet filed under Section 63 of the Copy Right Act, is not

sustainable.

7. Per contra, the learned Counsel for State of TN(Crl.side) appearing for

the first respondent had relied upon a decision of this Court reported in 2021

SCC Online Mad 17670, especially paragraph Nos.13 and 14 and contended

that when the ingredients of under Sections 51 r/w Section 63 of the Copy Right

Act are present, whether the allegations are true or not has to be decided only

during trial. According to him, the disputed facts raised by the petitioner herein

cannot be a subject matter of the quash petition.

8. The learned Counsel for State of TN(Crl.side) appearing for the first

respondent has further submitted that the criminal law can be set in motion by

any person unless a particular Act bars the initiation of a criminal complaint by

a third party. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

reported in 2025 SC Online HP 2406 and also the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court reported in (2022) 10 SCC 221, in support of his contention.

9. The learned Counsel for State of TN(Crl.side) appearing for the first

respondent that Sri Manchukonda Nawaab logo is a distinct artistic work which

5/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

has been registered before the Registrar of the Copy Right Act. The said logo

has been faked by the petitioner herein in his rice bags. There are no

dissimilarity between the original and the fake logo and in such circumstances,

it is clear that the petitioner has knowingly used the fake logo in order to derive

advantage of the huge quantity of the business available to the original logo. He

has further contended that whether the petitioner had mens rea or not is within

the special knowledge of the petitioner and therefore, the entire burden would

be upon him, to establish the same during trial. According to him, the same

cannot be a ground or a defence for quashing of the charge sheet. He also relied

upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2022 10 SCC 221,

Knit Pro International Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and another, points out that

the offences under Section 63 of the Copy Right Act, is cognisable and non-

bailable offence wherein the police authorities are entitled to register an FIR

and empowered to file the charge sheet.

10. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent

has submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the rice mill and 1300 kgs of

the rice which are filled in the bags contained in the fake logo have been seized.

Apart from that, 100 empty bags have also been seized. In such circumstances, a

prima facie has been made out as against the petitioner to undergo trial. Hence

he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

11. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused

the materials available on record.

12. A perusal of Section 51 reveals that it explains what is going to be

infringed of the Copy Right. Section 63 of the Act declares that infringement of

the Copy Right is the offence and imposes the maximum punishment of not less

than six months which may extend upto 3 years and with Fine. Therefore, it is

clear that the infringement of copyright is treated as a criminal offence.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (1984) 2 SCC

500, A.R.Antulay Vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and Another. Paragraph No.6

of the judgment is extracted as follows:-

6. It is a well recognised principle of criminal

jurisprudence that anyone can set or put the criminal law

into motion except where the statute enacting or creating an

offence indicates to the contrary. The scheme of the Code of

Criminal Procedure envisages two parallel and independent

agencies for taking criminal offences to court. Even for the

most serious offence of murder, it was not disputed that a

private complaint can, not only be filed but can be

entertained and proceeded with according to law. Locus

standi of the complainant is a concept foreign to criminal

jurisprudence save and except that where the statute

creating an offence provides for the eligibility of the

complainant, by necessary implication the general principle

gets excluded by such statutory provision.”

7/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2001) 5 SCC

407, Manohar Lal Vs. Vinesh Anand and others. Paragraph No.5 of the

judgment is extracted as follows:-

“5. Before adverting to the matter in issue and the rival

contentions advanced, one redeeming feature ought to be

noticed here pertaining to criminal jurisprudence. To pursue

an offender in the event of commission of an offence is to

subserve a social need - society cannot afford to have a

criminal escape his liability, since that would bring about a

state of social pollution, which is neither desired nor

warranted and this is irrespective of the concept of locus the

doctrine of locus standi is totally foreign to criminal

jurisprudence.

15. In the present case, a careful perusal of the Copy Right Act does not

disclose any eligibility for the complainant or by necessary implication,

designate some specific authority to the complaint. In view of the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra, the petitioner cannot raise the issue of

locus standi while criminal law is set in motion. That apart, a copyright has

been registered in the name of Sri. Chakravarthy Manchukonda, who is the

Managing Director of the Manchukonda Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. The sales

representative of the said company had lodged a compliant. Whether the

individual copyright owner had granted a license or permitted the company to

8/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

use the said copyright would be an internal dispute, and as far as the petitioner

herein, who is a third party cannot take advantage of the non-disclosure of the

same. In such circumstances, this Court does not find that the plea of lack of

locus standi is sustainable in the eye of law.

16. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had further

contended that under Section 63 of the Copy Right Act, unless the charges are

made to the effect that the person has knowingly infringed the copy right, it

cannot be treated as an offence.

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2009) 1 SCC

516, . Paragraph No.15 of the judgment is extracted as follows:-

“15.Propositions of law which emerge from the said

decisions are:

(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise

its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding

and, in particular, a first information report unless the

allegations contained therein, even if given face value and

taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no

cognizable offence.

(2)For the said purpose the Court, save and except

in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any

document relied upon by the defence.

(3) Such a power should be exercised very

sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose

commission of offence, the Court shall not go beyond the

same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold

absence of any mens rea or actus reus.

(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the

9/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the

criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.”

18. In the present case, the registered copyright of artistic logo and the

logo used by the petitioner herein have found to be almost similar without any

dissimilarities. 1300 kgs of the rice packed in sacks reflecting the fake logo

were found in the rice godown of the petitioner. Apart from that, 100 empty

bags with the fake logo have also been seized from the premises. The charge

sheet also points out that the registered copyright has been copied in entirety in

the fake logo used by the petitioner herein. It is not contended on the side of the

petitioner that they had used the logo without having any knowledge about the

registration of the copyright. In such circumstances, as pointed out by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported cited supra, when FIR

discloses the commission of the offence, the Court cannot go beyond the same

and pass order in favour of the accused to the effect that there is absence of

mens rea.

19. It is further contented on the side of the petitioner that the concept of

deceptive similarity is alien to the copyright law and it is confined only to cases

of infringement of the Trade Mark. This Court had already pointed out that FIR

and the charge sheet reveal that the copyrighted logo and the fake logo used by

the petitioner are one and the same. There is no dissimilarity whatsoever either

10/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

in the design, colour, font, background or the bag material. Therefore, it is clear

that the logo used by the petitioner as well as copyrighted logo are almost the

same. Though the concept of deceptive similarity is applied in trade mark law,

copyright law invokes the test of substantial similarity while considering the

infringement of copyright.

20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (1978) 4 SCC

118,. Paragraph No.46 of the judgment is extracted as follows:-

46. Thus, on a careful consideration and elucidation

of the various authorities and the case law on the subject

discussed above, the following propositions emerge:

1. There can be no copyright in an idea, subject-

matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts and

violation of the copyright in such cases is confined to the

form, manner and arrangement and expression of the idea

by the author of the copyrighted work.

2. Where the same idea is being developed in a

different manner, it is manifest that the source being

common, similarities are bound to occur. In such a case the

courts should determine whether or not the similarities are

on fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of

expression adopted in the copyrighted work. If the

defendant's work is nothing but a literal imitation of the

copyrighted work with some variations here and there it

would amount to violation of the copyright. In other words,

in order to be actionable the copy must be a substantial and

material one which at once leads to the conclusion that the

defendant is guilty of an act of piracy.

3. One of the surest and the safest test to determine

whether or not there has been a violation of copyright is to

see if the reader, spectator or the viewer after having read or

seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an

unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears

11/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

to be a copy of the original.

4. Where the theme is the same but is presented and

treated differently so that the subsequent work becomes a

completely new work, no question of violation of copyright

arises.

5. Where however apart from the similarities

appearing in the two works there are also material and

broad dissimilarities which negative the intention to copy

the original and the coincidences appearing in the two

works are clearly incidental no infringement of the copyright

comes into existence.”

21. A careful perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited

supra, especially clauses 2 and 3, will clearly point out that violation of the copy

right has to be viewed from the angle of the spectator or the viewer and whether

he would get an unmistake impression that the subsequent work appears to be a

copy of the original. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further found that the

Court should determine whether or not the similarities are on fundamental or

substantial aspects of the mode of expression adopted in the copyrighted work.

In the present case, the allegation as against the petitioner is that he has

completely copied the logo and there are no dissimilarities whatsoever. In such

circumstances, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the

charge sheet has invoked the principles of deceptive similarity and therefore, it

is liable to be quashed, cannot be countenanced in the light of the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

12/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

22. The petitioner had not made out any case for quashing of the charge

sheet, especially when the legal grounds raised by the petitioner herein have

been answered as against the petitioner.

23. The finding of this Court rendered above are confined only for the

purpose of disposal of the quash petition. The trial Court is directed to dispose

of the criminal case on merits and in accordance with law without being

influenced by any one of the observations made by this Court.

24. In view of the above said deliberations, there are no merits in the

petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

05.08.2026

NCC: Yes/No

Index : Yes/No

Internet: Yes/No

RJR

13/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

To

1. The learned Judicial Magistrate No. II,

Pudukottai.

2. The Inspector of Police,

Intellectual Property Right Enforcement Cell (IPREC),

Trichy Police Station,

Trichy.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

14/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J.

RJR

Pre-delivery order made

in

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13640 of 2026

05.08.2026

15/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis