Gauhati High Court
Sanjeev Gaur And Anr vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 23 April, 2026
Page No.# 1/14
GAHC010259552024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./1526/2024
SANJEEV GAUR AND ANR
R/O PV 60, THE PALM SPRINGS, GOLF COURSE ROAD, OPPOSITE HOTEL
IBIS, IN FRONT OF SOUTH POINT MALL, SECTOR-54, GURUGRAM-122001,
HARYANA.
2: SRI RANJIT KUMAR YADAV
S/O SHATRUDHAN YADAV
VILL- GOPALPUR
SIRE
GOPALPUR SIRI SUPAUL
BIHAR85213
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:M/S ANONDITA HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD.
OFFICE-D-0001
SECTOR-80
P.O. NOIDA-201 305 THROUGH ITS MANAGER VIJAY PRATAP YADAV SON
OF GANGA PRASAD YADAV
R/O PLOT NO. 9/10/11 NEW DELHI
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J C GAUR, MR D SAIKIA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
JUDGMENT
Page No.# 2/14 Advocate for the petitioners : Mr. J. C. Gaur, Ld Adv Advocate for the respondents : Mr. P. Borthakur, Addl. PP Date on which judgment is reserved : 08.04.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 23.04.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment ? : N/A Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced?
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. J. C. Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. None appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 2/ informant despite service of notice.
2. The two petitioners herein are invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528/529 BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of criminal proceedings pertaining to CR case No. 40 of 2024 and more especially, the Order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the Learned JMFC, Boko, Kamrup, taking cognizance against the petitioners under Section 408/420/120(B) IPC, read with Section 63 of the Copyright Act, read with Section 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, and issued summoning order.
3. Before proceeding further, the facts may be noted. The respondent No. 2, represented by its Manager, Vijay Pratap Yadav, submitted a Page No.# 3/14 complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup, Assam on 25.09.2021, with allegations that while they were involved in the manufacture of surgical gloves with the help of their indigenously designed machine, which was conceptualized in 2013 and started working in October 2013 - the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 conspired and stole their design and started manufacturing identical machines in their factory at Dholpur, Rajasthan, and caused wrongful loss to them and wrongful gain to the petitioners. It is stated in the FIR that the design made by the informant's company was registered under the Design Act 2002 on 18.04.2016 and certificate to that was also issued.
4. It is stated that one such machine was assembled at Noida, Uttar Pradesh, and then shifted the same to their Guwahati factory in Assam, which is situated at village Kurshala, P.O. Paneri, in the district of Kamrup in 2015. It is stated that petitioner No. 2 was a former employee of the informant's company and he was fully abreast of the designs of the machine of the informant's company. He stole and cheated the informant's company by giving the design to the petitioner No. 1, who started making similar products as mentioned earlier. It is alleged that apart from theft, cheating and forgery, the acts of the petitioners also constituted violation of Copyright Act and Designs Act.
5. It is alleged that subsequently the petitioner No. 2 left the company represented by the informant, and started working with petitioner No. 1 in his company in Rajasthan. On the basis of the FIR, Boko P.S. Case No. 826 of 2021 was registered under Section 120(B)/408/420 IPC read with Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Section 103/104 of the Trademark Act. The corresponding G.R. was G.R. No.938 of 2021. However, upon Page No.# 4/14 completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a final report in the case on the ground of inadequate evidence vide FR No.168 of 2023. It was stated that if the machines of the company of the accused was the same as that of the company of the informant, then the company of the accused would not have obtained patent certificate of their machines. However, it is stated that they tried to get an expert from the patent office of Government of India but could not be successful as they were informed that no expert can visit the factory to inspect machines and that there is no provision regarding the same under the Designs Act, 2000 and Designs Rules, 2001. It is stated that though the machines could not be inspected through a patent expert, but due to lack of evidence, the final report was submitted.
6. The informant was aggrieved by the submission of final report and he lodged a protest petition and eventually, he filed a complaint case by virtue of a complaint dated 28.06.2024, which was registered into Complaint case No. 40 of 2024. In the complaint, reiterating some of the allegations of the FIR, he stated that the company is in the business of manufacturing surgical gloves and they developed an indigenous machine for the same which became operational by October 2013 and that the design of the machine was registered under the Design Act, 2002 on 18.04.2016.
7. It is further stated in the complaint that the machine was initially assembled at the factory at Noida and shifted the same to the Guwahati factory which was located in village Kurshala under the jurisdiction of Boko Police Station in the district of Kamrup and that this was done so in 2015. It is stated that petitioner No. 2 was employed as an Assistant Page No.# 5/14 Production Manager till July 2019 at the factory in Assam at the same village under the jurisdiction of Boko Police Station and he had access to the machine, its design and other confidential information.
8. It is stated that petitioner No. 1 wanted to enter the same business and then he persuaded petitioner No. 2 and offered him a job with better pay and also bribe for sharing vital information, it is stated that both the petitioners talked in that direction, and petitioner No. 2 shared all the intellectual property and confidential information regarding the machine with the petitioner No. 1. It is stated that this was also revealed by the petitioner No.2 before some of the employees of the informant company. Subsequently, the informant came to know that the petitioner No. 2 joined the petitioner No.1 in his separate company by the name M/s Swear Healthcare Private Limited having factory at Dholpur, Rajasthan. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner No. 2 who was the employer of the firm represented by the informant stole the design of the machine which was indigenously developed by them and gave the same designs to the petitioner No. 1, who started making surgical gloves with an identical kind of machine. It is also contended that subsequently the petitioner No. 2 left the company of the informant and joined the petitioner No.1.
9. The complainant was examined under section 200 CrPC in which he stated that the petitioner No. 2, Ranjit Kumar Yadav used to work with his company from 2017 till 2020, and he had stolen the design patterns and sold it to petitioner No. 1 who is the proprietor of Swear Healthcare. After receiving the stolen pattern of the machine and design, the same firm started producing surgical gloves like the company of the Page No.# 6/14 complainant. He further stated that petitioner No. 2 at the time of leaving their company spoke to their employees that he is leaving and joining Swear Healthcare and he will take their employees also.
10. It is stated by the complainant that one of his employees namely Manoj had visited Swear Healthcare in Rajasthan and found an identical machine to the one they had manufactured. The complainant stated that the petitioner violated the provisions of the Designs Act. In support of his complaint, the complainant side examined three witnesses.
11. CW1, Gauranga Charan Mansi was examined under Section 202 CrPC. He is the Marketing Manager of the informant's company and he stated that the petitioner No. 2 used to work for their company at Mathura. Thereafter, he was posted in the Guwahati branch which is situated three kilometers from Chaygaon and he was posted as Production Supervisor and he had every knowledge about the machine. CW1 further stated that Ranjeet Yadav told him that he is manufacturing machine for Swear Healthcare and that he will leave the informant's company as soon as the machine is ready and thereafter, he left in 2019, without issuing any notice.
12. CW1 stated that the design and pattern of machine which he has manufactured at Swear Healthcare is same as their machine. It is alleged that the accused person, Ranjeet Yadav, stole their designs and sold it to petitioner No. 1.
13. CW2 is Manoj Singh who was Marketing Manager of the informant's company and he stated that the petitioner No. 2 used to work with them for 8-9 years and he was posted at Guwahati branch situated three Page No.# 7/14 kilometers from Chaygaon where he was Production Supervisor and he had every knowledge about the machine which was involved in production of surgical gloves. CW2 has also stated about the petitioner No. 2 telling him that he will soon leave the company after the machine designed by him for Swear Healthcare is ready. He has also stated about the said accused leaving the company in 2019 without any notice and about the design and pattern of the machine manufactured by the informant's company being the same as the one in Rajasthan, where petitioner No.1 is the owner. He has also stated about some employees seeing pictures on WhatsApp about identical nature of the two machines.
14. CW3 has also stated on similar lines about the petitioner No.2 being the Head Supervisor for 7-8 years and that he used to talk to petitioner No. 1 and tell him about the machine to produce surgical gloves. CW3 has even stated about hearing telephone conversations between petitioner No.2 and petitioner No. 1 about machine parts to be used at the Rajasthan factory. CW3 stated that the machine that was set up at the other place is the exact replica of the machine of their company.
15. On the basis of the complaint and after the initial deposition of the complainant and examination of the complainant witnesses being CW1, CW2 and CW3, the learned JMFC, Boko took cognizance vide the impugned order dated 21.08.2024.
16. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel, Mr. Gaur, submits that the instant proceeding has been maliciously lodged by the complainant after submission of final report at the police, which was done so upon not finding any evidence regarding any wrongdoing on the part of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the company of Page No.# 8/14 petitioner No. 1 has been manufacturing surgical gloves since 2016.
17. It is submitted that a case of business rivalry has been dragged into the domain of criminal complaint and therefore, it should be quashed and set aside. Further, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Court at Boko did not have any jurisdiction as the machine which was purportedly copied is working in Dholpur, Rajasthan and therefore, course of action, if any, does not arise within the jurisdiction of the Trial court in Assam.
18. It is also submitted that apart from the infirmity regarding territorial jurisdiction, on merits also, the complaint does not have merit and that the Investigating Officer upon not finding evidence submitted FIR and the complaint was lodged again reviving the same issue. It is also submitted that the informant had lodged an FIR before the Gautam Buddha Nagar Police Station in Noida, Uttar Pradesh with allegations of cheating, conspiracy and siphoning of goods worth crores of rupees and giving false information to Government of India. The said case was registered as Gautam Budha Nagar PS case No. 20 of 2016, and it is submitted that the petitioners side had preferred a quashing proceeding before the Allahabad High Court, and the Allahabad High Court was pleased to grant an order of stay.
19. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the following decisions:-
(i) Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr reported in (2004) 8 SCC 100;
(ii) Bhura Ram & ors Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr reported in Page No.# 9/14 (2008) 11 SCC 103;
(iii) Sujoy Ghosh Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr in SLP (Crl) No. 9452 of 2025.
20. On the other hand, the learned Additional PP representing the State submits that the learned Trial court took cognizance after examining the complainant and as many as three witnesses on his behalf, and at this stage there may not be sufficient justification to quash the criminal proceedings. The learned Additional PP further submits that the machinery had operated within the jurisdiction of Boko Police Station and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Court at Boko did not have any territorial jurisdiction. As already mentioned at the outset, none appeared on behalf of the informant despite being serviced by the informant.
21. As reflected in Order dated 04.11.2025, as per Office note dated 01.11.2025, service upon respondent No. 2 was completed, indicated by the consignment tracking report and that the consignment was delivered on 12.03.2025 and vide order dated 04.11.2025, service upon respondent No. 2 was deemed to be complete.
22. I have perused the relevant materials, the impugned order and considered the submissions on both the sides. I have perused the decisions cited at the bar.
23. Before proceeding further, the provisions of Section 177 CrPC (corresponding to Section 197 BNSS) may be reproduced herein below:-
Page No.# 10/14 "177. Ordinary place of inquiry or trial.- Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed."
24. Thus, the ordinary territorial jurisdiction of investigation and trying an offence is the place where the offence took place. However, if an offence has multiple limbs spreading across different territorial jurisdictions, then any Court within the jurisdiction of which, any part of the course of action has taken place would also have the territorial jurisdiction to try the offence.
25. This has been specifically provided in Section 178 CrPC (corresponding to section 198 BNSS) and the said provision may also be reproduced herein below:-
"178. Place of inquiry or trial-
(a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or
(b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or
(c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or
(d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas."
26. The contentions of the petitioners' side primarily has two limbs - firstly, that, as the machine in question which was allegedly made by copying the machine of the informant 's company is functioning at Dholpur, Rajasthan - therefore, the Court in Assam does not have territorial jurisdiction in terms of the aforesaid procedural provisions. The second limb of the submission is that the police investigation resulted in Page No.# 11/14 a final/closure report due to lack of evidence and the informant again filed a complaint over the same thing. It is submitted that the dispute between the parties is essentially a business rivalry and therefore, the criminal prosecution should not lie.
27. On the aspect of territorial jurisdiction, I find from the initial deposition of the complainant and the initial depositions of the three complainant witnesses that - all of them have stated about functioning of the machine in the village near Chaygaon, within the jurisdiction of Boko police station. The crux of the dispute is that the said machine was indigenously designed at the informant's company and the petitioner No. 2 in collusion with petitioner No. 1 stole the design and made identical machine for their company in Rajasthan. From the statements of the complainant witnesses, I find that they have stated about functioning of the machine in the area pertaining to the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court at Boko and about the stealing of the design of the machine.
28. Therefore, in terms of the stipulations in Section 178 CrPC (corresponding to 198 BNSS), it cannot be said that no part of the alleged offence has taken place within the jurisdiction of the learned JMFC, Boko. Hence, on the aspect of territorial jurisdiction, there is no error, in my considered view in the order of the learned JMFC, Boko.
29. The decision in Y. Abraham Ajith (supra) relied upon by the petitioners side discusses the law of territorial jurisdiction for trial of offences. But the said decision would not be of assistance to the petitioners as in that case, it was found that no part of the cause of action had arisen in Chennai and therefore, the concerned Magistrate there was held to have no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
Page No.# 12/14
30. Similarly, in Bhura Ram (supra) also, the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to the aforesaid decision of Y. Abraham Ajith (supra) and it was found that no part of the offence was committed in Rajasthan and, therefore, the concerned Magistrate did not have territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, this decision would also not come to the aid of the petitioners side on the aspect of territorial jurisdiction.
31. With regard to the aspects of merit of the impugned order of taking cognizance and summoning the accused petitioners, I again go back to the statements of the complainant and his witnesses examined by the learned JMFC, Boko prior to issuing of the summoning order, upon taking cognizance. The complainant and his witnesses have stated about finding that the machine in Rajasthan operated by the company of petitioner No. 1, is identical to the machine developed by the company of the informant. The witnesses have also stated about how the petitioner No. 2 was working with the informant's company and he was crucially involved in designing of the machine for manufacture of surgical gloves.
32. The witnesses have also stated about the petitioner No. 2, indicating about making a similar/identical machine for the company of petitioner No. 1 and one of the witnesses have also stated about telephone conversations between the petitioners regarding the same. The complainant and his witnesses have consistently stated about the petitioner No. 2 stealing the design of the machine of the informant's company and selling it to petitioner No. 1. The witnesses have also stated that subsequently, the petitioner No. 2 joined the company of petitioner No. 1.
33. On the law regarding cognizance, the learned counsel for the Page No.# 13/14 petitioners' has referred to the decision of Sujoy Ghosh (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained the settled position of law on the subject. The relevant paragraph 13 may be reproduced herein below:-
"13. The principles governing summoning of an accused in a criminal case as well as parameters for quashing criminal proceedings are well-settled. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect application of mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The Magistrate must carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and determine whether any offence is prima facie made out. The Magistrate may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise, and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."
34. On the touchstone of these principles, I again peruse the impugned order passed by the learned JMFC, Boko vis-a-vis the statements of the witnesses of the complainant side.
35. Upon doing so, and in the backdrop of the nature of the statements made by the complainant witnesses - I am of the considered view that the learned JMFC, Boko was justified on these materials to take cognizance and issue summoning order to the accused petitioners. In the context of the materials which were presented before the learned Trial Court, the impugned order passed by the learned JMFC, Boko has not deviated from the principles summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Page No.# 14/14 in Sujoy Ghosh (supra).
36. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances and in the backdrop of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the learned JMFC, Boko in CR No. 40/2024 is hereby upheld and confirmed.
37. Consequently, the criminal petition is found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed.
38. The stay order on the proceedings granted by the order dated 16.12.2024, stand vacated. A copy of this judgment and order shall be sent to the learned Court below.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant