The case revolved around an FIR lodged in 2018, which accused the petitioners of using registered trailer designs belonging to the complainant without authorisation. However, through rigorous judicial scrutiny, the High Court ultimately held that the continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and quashed the FIR.
The controversy stemmed from a complaint filed by Mahendrabhai Mahadevbhai Ambani, who alleged that the petitioners had copied trailer designs registered under the name of his business, M/s. Tirupati Agro Industries. He claimed proprietary rights over two specific trailer designs, registered under Nos. 251288 and 257792 on January 29, 2013. These designs were being used for manufacturing and selling trailers and drawbars under the brand name “Maruti Trailer.” The complainant had not only registered the designs with the Design and Patent Office in Kolkata but had also issued public notices in newspapers warning others not to replicate them. Upon allegedly discovering that the petitioners were producing trailers with identical or similar designs, he lodged an FIR on March 16, 2018, under Sections 420 and 114 of the IPC, Section 11 of the Designs Act, and Sections 63, 64, and 65 of the Copyright Act.
Faced with the registration of this FIR, the petitioners, Harjivanbhai Hansrajbhai Patel and others, promptly approached the Gujarat High Court to seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC. They argued that the FIR lacked legal merit and was filed with mala fide intent. Represented by advocate Mr. D.K. Trivedi, the petitioners asserted that they were partners in a firm called ‘Prince Steel and Maruti Traders’, engaged in the manufacture and sale of tractor and trailer parts. They contended that the designs in question were not novel or exclusive but had been commonly used by several manufacturers for years prior to the complainant’s registration.
To support their argument, the petitioners produced photographs of trailers using similar designs along with the registration certificate (RC) of a vehicle dating back to 2010, predating the complainant’s 2013 design registration. Affidavits from multiple manufacturers were also submitted, affirming that these designs were standard across the industry and had been used well before 2013. These affidavits supported the contention that the complainant could not claim a monopoly over a design that lacked originality and had long been in public use.
The petitioners pointed out that as per Section 15(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957, copyright does not subsist in any design that is registered under the Designs Act, 2000. Further, under Section 15(2), copyright protection ceases once the design is industrially reproduced more than fifty times, even if the design had not been registered. The complainant’s assertion of copyright infringement was thus unsustainable because the design had been both registered and commercially exploited extensively. In effect, no copyright subsisted, and therefore no criminal liability under Sections 63, 64, or 65 of the Copyright Act could be invoked against the petitioners.
Moreover, the petitioners argued that the Designs Act itself mandates that a design already in use or not novel cannot be registered, and if mistakenly registered, must be cancelled. They noted that the complainant had also filed a civil suit in a competent court over the same subject matter, indicating that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and not one warranting criminal prosecution. The petitioners emphasised that the FIR was vague, lacked specificity, and did not delineate the individual roles of the accused, thereby violating the foundational requirement of criminal liability, which necessitates clearly defined allegations.
On the other side, the State opposed the petition, asserting that prima facie involvement of the petitioners was discernible from the FIR and that the investigation had been halted due to the interim relief granted earlier, leaving the case incomplete. The State urged the court to allow the prosecution to proceed, arguing that the FIR disclosed sufficient grounds to continue the investigation.
After thoroughly reviewing the submissions and the evidence, the Gujarat High Court observed that the designs in question were undeniably in use prior to the complainant’s registration. It cited photographic evidence and the 2010 RC Book to highlight that similar trailer designs existed before 2013, thereby undermining the originality of the complainant’s design claim. Justice Joshi emphasised that when a design is already in the public domain and lacks novelty, registering it does not grant enforceable exclusive rights against others who had been using it earlier.
The Court also found that the complainant’s reliance on the Copyright Act was fundamentally flawed due to the statutory bar in Section 15, which clearly extinguishes copyright in registered designs. With the evidence showing repeated commercial use of the designs well beyond the statutory threshold, the Court held that no offence under the Copyright Act could be established.
Drawing from precedents, including the decisions in Binita Rahul Shah vs State of Gujarat and Mayur Kanaiyalal Shah vs State of Gujarat, the Court reaffirmed that criminal prosecution cannot substitute civil remedies in intellectual property disputes. Criminal law should not be invoked when the core of the issue lies in disputed proprietary or design rights best resolved through civil proceedings. In the Court’s view, the continuation of the criminal case would not serve the ends of justice but would instead result in undue harassment and waste of judicial resources.
In its final analysis, the High Court concluded that even if the FIR’s contents were accepted in totality, they did not disclose any cognisable offence under the IPC, the Copyright Act, or the Designs Act. The continuation of criminal proceedings would be futile and unjust. Consequently, the FIR was registered, and all consequential proceedings were quashed.
This judgment is significant as it highlights the judiciary’s role in preventing the misuse of criminal law in commercial and intellectual property disputes. It delineates the boundary between civil and criminal remedies. It affirms that mere possession of a design registration does not automatically translate into enforceable criminal rights, especially when the design lacks novelty or originality.