LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

M/s Knit Pro International vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Criminal Appeal · 2022 INSC 621Decided 20 May 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 807 of 2022
M.R. Shah · B.V. Nagarathna

Background

Knit Pro International got an FIR registered against the respondent for copyright infringement (offences under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 420 IPC) after obtaining a Magistrate's direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The accused approached the Delhi High Court seeking to quash the FIR, arguing that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a non-cognizable offence. The High Court agreed and quashed the FIR and the criminal proceedings, prompting the original complainant to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred. Under Section 63 of the Copyright Act the maximum punishment is imprisonment up to three years plus fine, and under Part II of the First Schedule of the Cr.P.C., offences punishable with imprisonment of three years and upwards (but less than seven years) are classified as cognizable and non-bailable; only offences punishable with less than three years' imprisonment or fine alone are non-cognizable. Since Section 63 permits a sentence up to (and including) three years, the offence fell within the cognizable category. The Court distinguished the precedent relied upon by the accused (Rakesh Kumar Paul, which dealt with a different statutory context) as inapplicable. It restored the FIR and criminal proceedings, directing that they continue on the footing that the offence is cognizable and non-bailable.

Lesson Learnt

Copyright infringement under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable and non-bailable offence: police can register and investigate an FIR without needing a Magistrate's prior sanction, and courts should not quash such FIRs on the mistaken premise that the offence is only non-cognizable.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case