Garments Are Not Copyrightable Works: Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes FIR Over Sale Of Fake Raymond

Justice Manisha Batra, in an order dated January 23, 2026, allowed a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by Davinder Pal Bakshi, proprietor of Ambala-based garment business Bakshi Enterprises, and set aside an FIR registered under Sections 51 and 63 of the Copyright Act for infringement, along with all consequential proceedings.

The Court observed, “The prosecution case, therefore, rests entirely on the alleged sale of spurious garments. A plain reading of Section 13 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that copyright subsists only in respect of the specific classes of works enumerated therein. Garments or cloth, as such, do not fall within the ambit of the said provision.”

The case arose from an FIR lodged in October 2021 at Ambala City Police Station on the basis of a complaint by an authorized representative of Raymond Company. The complaint alleged that Bakshi Enterprises and another textile outlet were engaged in preparing and selling combo packs of spurious garments falsely represented as genuine Raymond products, causing financial loss to consumers and damage to the brand's goodwill.

According to the record, during the investigation, police recovered garments allegedly bearing fake Raymond branding from the trader's premises, following which a chargesheet was filed and charges were framed by the trial court.

Challenging the proceedings, the trader approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, arguing that the essential ingredients of offences under the Copyright Act were not made out. It was argued that cloth, fabric or garments do not fall within any of the categories of “works” enumerated under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, therefore, no copyright could subsist in them, rendering a criminal prosecution under copyright law unjustified.

Opposing the plea, the State asserted that the trader was found in possession of spurious garments bearing Raymond branding and that the trial court had rightly found a prima facie case and framed charges.

After examining the statutory scheme of the Copyright Act, the Court held that the prosecution was legally unsustainable. It noted that Section 13 confines copyright protection to specific classes of works and that garments do not fall within its ambit.

Referring to its earlier rulings in Deepak v. State of Haryana and Arun Kumar v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated that prosecution for sale of fake branded garments under the Copyright Act is not maintainable in law, as such garments do not constitute copyrighted works.

The Court added, “Applying the aforesaid settled position of law to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at their face value, the same do not disclose the commission of offences under Sections 51 and 63 of the Act. Continuation of criminal proceedings on such allegations would, therefore, be nothing but an abuse of the process of law.”

Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR, the chargesheet, the order framing charges and all subsequent proceedings against the trader.

For Petitioner: Advocate Munish Behl

For Respondents: DAG Haryana Himani Arora