It is normal for the patentee to seek copyright protection of the literary work in the same subject matter. This means that copyright protection can subsist along with patents. However, in a dispute involving a patent and copyright, the Sessions Judge discharged the respondents, concluding that copyright protection ended with the grant of a patent. In Kishore Chhabra vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. CRR-408-2015, presented before the Madhya Pradesh High Court on July 8, 2025, the core dispute involved whether the respondents violated Chhabra’s patent and copyright related to an oil chamber cleaning machine.
This criminal revision, under Section 397 read with Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was preferred to challenge the legality of the order dated March 18, 2015, in Criminal Revision No. 336 of 2014, by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain. In this matter, a charge framed under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 420 of the IPC against the respondent in Criminal Case No. 5042 of 2013 by JMFC, Ujjain, vide order dated October 30, 2014, was set aside. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore looked into the legality of the order and ruled that:
“The Court exercising Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 397 should be extremely circumspect in interfering with the order framing the charge, and could not have interfered with the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application for deleting of the charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated 18.03.2015 in Criminal Revision No. 336 of 2014 passed by the Court of III Additional District Judge, Ujjain is set-aside.”
Brief Facts of the Case
A patent was granted to Kishore Chhabra (petitioner seeking revision) for an invention entitled “Oil Chamber Cleaning Machine” for 20 years from August 8, 2016, as per the provisions of the Patents Act, 1970. The copyright of the work under the class “Literary” for the work “Rock Engine Oil Chamber Cleaning Machine” was registered on January 19, 2009. An FIR was lodged by the respondents on July 17, 2013, as Crime No. 607 of 2013 at Police Station Chimanganj Mandi against the firm Speed Engine and Mahalaxmi Engineering, Ujjain (respondents) under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 63 of the Copyrights Act, 1957 for violating the petitioner’s patent.
After investigation, a final report was submitted, and Criminal Case No. 5042 of 2013 was registered, and charges under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 63 of the Copyrights Act, 1957 were framed. The respondents denied the charges and filed an application for the deletion of the charges under Section 216 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the Trial Court.
Respondent’s Argument
The respondent submitted that their machines were completely different from those of the revision petitioners, and therefore, there could not be a case of copyright infringement, as the same suction machine was used in a hospital. Additionally, the machine was an assembled machine, and the design patent or copyright could be granted. The respondent further submitted that the copyright was obtained by providing false information, and he had applied for cancellation at the Design and Patent Office, Chennai. Despite serving notice, the petitioner neither appeared before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board nor responded to the application. The respondent further asserted that the Design Act and Patent Act also constitute civil wrongs, and no penal action was required. The respondent contended that the FIR lodged solely due to business competition.
Orders of the Trial Court
The Trial Court rejected the respondent’s application vide order dated October 30, 2014. The respondent challenged the order of the Trial Court and preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge, Ujjain.
Order of III Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain
The III Additional Sessions Ujjain, vide order dated March 18, 2015, in Criminal Revision No. 336 of 2014, set aside the order of the Trial Court dated October 30, 2014, and recorded the following findings for setting aside the order:
“12. The trial Court framed charge against the accused under Section 63 Copy Right Act as well as Section 420 IPC which is not legally correct because Section 3 Copy Right Act also covers section 420 IPC there is no need to frame separate charge under Section 420 of IPC.
- Since the violation of patent right is a civil wrong therefore the accused could not be prosecuted for violation of Copy Right Act once patent right is granted Copy Right Act come to an end. The Copy Right Act Section 15(2)provides “……………………………|”
- No literate of literary work has been filed along with complaint. The literary work does not mean what is written on machine itself therefore the argument of Shri Chabra Advocate that on machine literally machine on work is without any bases therefore I am of the opinion that this revision petition deserves to be allowed hence it is allowed by setting aside the order dated 30.10.2014. Accused is ordered to be discharged under Section 63 Copy Right Act and 420 IPC.
Accused are ordered to be set at liberty. The record of this case be sent forthwith.”
Present Revision Petition Assertions
Aggrieved by the order of III Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain to set free the accused, Mr. Kishore Chhabra (patentee and copyright holder) filed the criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the High Court Indore challenging the legality of the order dated March 18, 2015 in Criminal Revision No. 336 of 2014 by III Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, whereby charge framed under Section 63 of Copyright Act, 1957 and 420 of the IPC against the respondent in Criminal Case No. 5042 of 2013 by JMFC, Ujjain vide order dated October 30, 2014 was set aside.
Challenging the order of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, the present revision petition was preferred on the ground that the Sessions Court failed to appreciate the essential ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioner submitted that the order of discharge could be passed if the prosecution’s version, accepted in its entirety, did not disclose any offence that was not present in the case. The petitioner also submitted that the Sessions Court, Ujjain, erred in not reading/misreading the material adduced before it. They also asserted that the Sessions Court committed an error in interpreting Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, concluding that the Copyright Act came to an end once a patent right was granted. It was argued that the said finding was per se illegal because, in the present case, the copyright was granted after the patent was granted.
High Court Findings and Decision
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore gleaned through the facts vis a vis legal position under the copyright law and found that a patent was granted to the patentee for the invention entitled “Oil Chamber Machine” on August 8, 2006. The copyright for the work under the “literary” class, titled “Rock Engine Oil Chamber Cleaning Machine,” was registered on January 19, 2009. Disagreeing with the ruling of the Session Court that “once patent right is granted, the Copyright Act come to an end”, the High Court ruled that “the first part of Paragraph-13 has been recorded without adverting to these facts”.
Additionally, the Court clarified that “the fact that subject matter of Copy Right is capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 2000 or the reproduction of the design for more than 50 times by an Industrial process, by the owner of copyright was a matter of evidence.”
The Court also held that “when the Copyright has been registered as literary work then Revision Court was not within the jurisdiction to record a finding at this stage that no literature of literary work was filed along with complaint.”
On Scope Application under Section 216
Looking into the scope and application under Section 216, the Court observed that Section 216(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that the Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. Citing the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Ravi vs State of Tamil Nadu [2024 SCC Online SC 2283], wherein it is held that “Section 216 does not give any right to the accused to file a fresh application seeking discharge, specifically when application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C had already been dismissed”, the Court questioned the application of Section 216 in this case. The Court ruled that:
“the power under Section 397(1) should be exercised very sparingly and only where the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, or there was non-compliance of the provisions of law, or the findings recorded by the trial court was based on no evidence, or material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion was exercised arbitrarily or perversely by framing the charge. The Court exercising Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 397 should be extremely circumspect in interfering with the order framing the charge and could not have interfered with the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application for deleting of the charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated 18.03.2015 in Criminal Revision No. 336 of 2014 passed by the Court of III Additional District Judge, Ujjain is set-aside.” [Emphasis added]
Concluding Remarks
This case highlights the working of the criminal revision courts in IPR-related matters. The High Court questioned the wrong interpretation of the Criminal Revision Court that “once a patent right is granted the Copyright Act come to an end”. It ruled that it was recorded without advertence to the facts of the case and the fact that the subject matter of Copyright is capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 2000. This case also established that criminal charges framed under the Copyright Act, 1957 cannot be given a go by through an application under Section 216 of the CrPC. The Criminal Revision Court should be extremely circumspect in interfering with the order framing the charge and could not have interfered with the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application for deleting the charge under Section 216 of CrPC.
The dispute in this case involved the respondents’ alleged violation of Chhabra’s patent and copyright related to an oil chamber cleaning machine. The High Court rightly found that the Sessions Judge erred in concluding that copyright protection ended with the grant of a patent. The High Court also found that the Session Judge misapplied legal standards regarding charge framing. Consequently, the High Court rightly set aside the Sessions Judge’s order, reinstated the charges, and directed the trial court to proceed with the case.
Author: DPS Parmar
First Published by: Mondaq here