Om Prakash v. Singh
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Copyright Act, 1957 ss. 63, 65
- Trade Marks Act, 1999 ss. 103, 104
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 35
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to quash the impugned FIR dated 20.2.2026 arising out of Case Crime No. 92 of 2026, under Sections 63, 65 of Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 103, 104 of Trade Marks Act, 1999, Police Station- Karvi Kotwali Nagar, District-Chitrakoot.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the allegations made in the impugned FIR, no offence whatsoever is disclosed against the petitioner and as such, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that on the careful perusal of the impugned FIR, it is evident that all the sections, under which, the impugned FIR has been registered, are punishable with the term up to 7 years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned FIR, respondent/ authorities shall ensure that the specific provisions contained in Section 35 of BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 and further directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the 2 CRLP No. 6730 of 2026 case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another vide orders dated 21.01.2025 and 15.01.2026 be strictly complied with.
In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, matter requires consideration.
Issue notice to respondent no. 4 returnable within four weeks. Steps be taken within a week.
Learned AGA may also file counter affidavit within the same period.
List this case on 4.8.2026.
In the meantime, since all the offences, on the basis of which, the impugned FIR has been registered are punishable with the term up to 7 years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned FIR, respondent/ authorities shall ensure that the specific provisions contained in Section 35 of BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 and further directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another vide orders dated 21.01.2025 and 15.01.2026 be strictly complied with. May 5, 2026 KU (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.