One of my clients recently had a case which I am explaining below and if you are stuck in such similar situation, here is what to do.
Note: Due to attorney-client privilege, I cannot disclose complete case details or identify the actual parties involved. However, I am sharing the essential facts and legal approach so that if you find yourself in a similar situation, you can understand the available solutions and legal remedies.
TL;DR: A manager was falsely shown as the owner of a company in an FIR involving counterfeit wearable products. His lawyer advised him to skip court summons. That's a terrible idea — it risks non-bailable warrants and proclamation proceedings. A better route is to either apply for regular bail or file a quashing petition in the High Court, backed by solid proof of being just an employee.
Vikram Mehta (name changed) worked as a manager at a retail outlet in Nagpur, run by a company that sold wearable gadgets. In January 2025, the shop was raided by the local police following a complaint from a major brand. They recovered counterfeit fitness bands and smartwatches. The FIR was registered under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The real owner, a man named Rajesh Khandelwal, convinced Vikram to take responsibility. He told him to say he was the owner. Vikram agreed, not realising the legal mess ahead. He later learned summons had been issued. He attended one hearing. Then his lawyer told him to skip the next two summons, promising bail after that. Worried, Vikram approached the Chamber of Advocate Sudhir Rao.
Advocate Sudhir Rao and his office immediately saw the problem. Skipping summons is reckless — it invites coercive measures like non-bailable warrants. Instead, they gathered contract letters, salary slips, and employee ID cards showing Vikram's true role. They filed a quashing petition before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court under Section 528 BNSS. The Court quashed the summons against Vikram, holding that no prima facie case existed against him as a mere employee. Advocate Sudhir Rao's domain expertise in intellectual property and criminal law helped secure this order in favour of the client.
Key Facts of the Case
- Vikram Mehta was a salaried manager, not the owner of the business.
- The FIR was filed in January 2025 under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act and Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act.
- The actual owner convinced Vikram to falsely claim ownership during the raid.
- Summons were issued from the Magistrate's court in Nagpur.
- Vikram attended the first summons, but his lawyer advised skipping the next two.
- The office of Advocate Sudhir Rao advised against skipping summons and instead filed a quashing petition.
- The High Court quashed the summons, relying on the employment documents produced.
- No bail application was needed because the summons itself was quashed.
The Direct Legal Answer
Vikram had three clear questions. Here's the straight answer for each.
Can skipping summons make things worse?
Yes — absolutely. Once a court issues summons, you are required to appear. Deliberately missing them can lead to a non-bailable warrant (NBW) being issued. After that, the court may declare you a proclaimed offender under Section 84 BNSS. That opens the door to attachment of property and arrest. The idea of skipping summons to later apply for bail is not a smart strategy. It just annoys the court and weakens your position.
Is the lawyer's advice to skip summons normal?
No, it's not normal in competent criminal practice. Most experienced advocates will tell you to appear every time. If you have a valid defence — like being a mere employee — you should raise it in court, not dodge it. The lawyer's approach in this case was risky and unnecessary.
What options does Vikram have?
He had two main options. First: file a regular bail application under Section 480 BNSS if arrested, or anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS if he feared arrest. Second: file a quashing petition under Section 528 BNSS before the High Court, arguing that there is no prima facie case against him because he's not the owner. That's what Advocate Sudhir Rao and his office did, and it worked.
Advice in Such Cases
The first thing to do — don't hide from the court. Appear. Get a lawyer who understands criminal procedure and the specific law you're charged under. IPR cases have their own nuances, and a general practitioner might not know the best strategy.
Consult with Lawyer: The very basic and important step to start is talk to Lawyer / advocate. You should not hesitate in paying his consultation fee i.e. might be in range of Rs. 10,000 to 50,000 depends case to case. He is helping you in this situation to come out. He is expert in the domain and can help you explain the procedure which you might have never explored. A good lawyer can get the issues resolved much faster than you think.
Next, collect every document that proves your actual role — employment contract, appointment letter, salary account statements, attendance records, and any communication with the real owner. These are your weapons. Finally, do not sign anything or make any statement to the police without your advocate present. And here's the thing: this type of matter demands a lawyer who regularly handles criminal IPR cases. Procedural and evidentiary nuances — like what constitutes a "prima facie case" for quashing — are things a specialist knows cold. Don't risk your freedom on a lawyer who treats summons like a suggestion.
Applicable Sections of Law
- Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 — Punishes knowing infringement of copyright in any work with imprisonment up to 3 years and fine.
- Section 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 — Makes possession of plates for making infringing copies a punishable offence.
- Section 103 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 — Penalises false application of trade marks with imprisonment up to 3 years and fine.
- Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 — Covers sale of goods bearing a falsely applied trade mark.
- Section 528 BNSS — Confers inherent power on the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the court process.
- Section 480 BNSS — Provides for regular bail in bailable offences.
Punishment and Penalties
- Minimum punishment: None specified — court discretion applies.
- Maximum punishment: Up to 3 years imprisonment under both the Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act.
- Fine: Not fixed; depends on the court's discretion.
- Cognizable / Non-cognizable: These offences under the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act are generally cognizable — police can arrest without a warrant.
- Bailable / Non-bailable: Typically non-bailable — bail is at the court's discretion.
- Compoundable / Non-compoundable: These are generally non-compoundable, meaning they cannot be settled privately.
Jurisdiction — Where to File the Case
For criminal matters like this, the case is filed in the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) or the Chief Judicial Magistrate within whose territorial jurisdiction the offence occurred. The police station having jurisdiction over the area where the raid happened — in this case, a Nagpur police station — conducts the investigation. For quashing, the remedy lies with the High Court having jurisdiction over that state — here, the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. Jurisdiction matters because a wrong forum wastes time and money.
What if Police Refuse to File FIR?
- First, approach the Superintendent of Police (SP) under Section 173(4) BNSS with a written complaint.
- If no action, file a private complaint directly before the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS.
- As a last resort, approach the High Court through a writ petition for a direction to register the FIR.
- Keep a diary of all communications with the police and preserve copies of your complaint.
Rights of the Accused
- Right to remain silent: You are not bound to answer any question that may incriminate you — Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
- Right to legal representation: You can consult and be defended by a lawyer of your choice — Article 22.
- Right to be produced before a Magistrate: If arrested, the police must produce you before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours.
- Right to know grounds of arrest: You must be informed of the grounds of your arrest immediately.
- Right to copy of FIR: You are entitled to receive a copy of the FIR free of cost.
Bail Provisions
Since these offences are non-bailable, bail is at the court's discretion. If the police arrest you, you can apply for regular bail under Section 480 BNSS before the Magistrate. If you anticipate arrest, you can file an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS before the Sessions Court or High Court. The court considers factors like the nature of the offence, evidence against you, and whether you will cooperate with the investigation. A strong defence — like being only an employee — makes bail easier to get. Skipping summons, however, tells the court you're a flight risk, which hurts your bail chances.
Quashing of FIR / Case
The High Court has inherent power under Section 528 BNSS to quash criminal proceedings if they amount to an abuse of process or if no prima facie offence is made out against the accused. Common grounds include: the FIR does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence, the allegations are false or malicious, or the accused is falsely implicated. Quashing is a powerful remedy. It ends the case without a trial. But it's not automatic — the court only grants it in clear cases. Vikram's case was strong because he had documentary proof he was not the owner. That is the kind of evidence that makes quashing possible.
How the Police Behave in Such Cases
In IPR-related raids, the police typically arrest the person found in control of the premises — usually the manager or the person present. They don't always verify ownership documents on the spot. The investigation tends to be summary: the police record statements, seize goods, and file a chargesheet based on the complaint. They may not distinguish between an owner and an employee unless you demonstrate your actual role early. That's why it's crucial to produce your employment proof to the investigating officer at the earliest stage.
Timeline of Legal Process
- FIR Registration: Day of the raid.
- Investigation: Typically 2-4 months, including evidence collection and witness statements.
- Chargesheet Filing: Within 90 days (or 60 days for some offences) from arrest, or the accused gets default bail.
- Cognizance by Magistrate: After chargesheet is filed — about 1-2 months.
- Framing of Charges: 1-3 months after cognizance.
- Trial: 6 months to 2 years for summary trials; longer for warrant cases.
- Judgment: Varies widely. Expect 1-3 years from FIR, but quashing can end it in weeks.
How Long Will the Investigation Take?
Police investigations in IPR cases like this often wrap up within 60 to 90 days. The investigating officer needs to collect the seized goods, get forensic reports if needed, record statements of the complainant and witnesses, and file a chargesheet. If no arrest is made, there's less urgency. Vikram was not arrested initially, so the investigation moved slowly. But once chargesheet is filed, the court takes over.
Understanding the Costs
The total cost of a matter like this varies significantly from one case to the next — it depends on the complexity of the dispute, the forum involved, the number of hearings, and the specific facts of your situation. There is no single fixed figure that applies to everyone.
A professional advocate can give you an accurate estimate only after reviewing all your facts and documents in a consultation.
Can the Matter Be Settled Out of Court?
These offences under the Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act are generally non-compoundable — meaning the court will not simply accept a private settlement and dismiss the case. However, a compromise with the complainant can sometimes influence the court to grant a lighter sentence or bail. Mediation or Lok Adalat is not typically used for non-compoundable criminal cases. But if the real owner steps up to take responsibility, that might help your position. Settlement out of court is more realistic in civil IPR disputes, not criminal ones.
Common Mistakes People Make
- Engaging a lawyer without domain-specific experience: An advocate who doesn't regularly handle criminal IPR or quashing petitions may not know how to frame the Section 528 BNSS application effectively. Procedural strategy matters — and a general practitioner can miss it.
- Skipping court summons: This is the single worst move. It triggers warrants and gives the court a negative impression of you.
- Making statements to police without a lawyer: Anything you say can and will be used against you. Stay silent until your advocate is present.
- Destroying or hiding evidence: If you have records proving your employment, preserve them. Throwing away salary slips or appointment letters is self-sabotage.
- Signing documents under pressure: Never sign anything without reading it carefully and consulting your lawyer.
- Posting about the case on social media: Anything you post can be used as evidence by the prosecution. Keep your case off the internet.
FAQs People Normally Have
Can I be arrested even though I'm just a manager?
Yes, if the police believe you were "in charge" of the premises where counterfeit goods were found. But you can argue that you were not the owner and had no knowledge of the illegal activity. Documentary proof of your employment is your best defence.
Will the court believe me if I say the owner forced me to take the blame?
It depends on the evidence. A written statement or an email from the owner admitting his role, plus your employment documents, can be persuasive. Without proof, it's just your word against his.
Can I switch lawyers if I don't trust my current one?
Absolutely. You have the right to change your advocate at any stage. Just ensure the new lawyer gets a complete copy of the case file and that you inform the court of the change.
Is filing a quashing petition expensive?
Costs vary by lawyer and court. In lower courts, fees for a quashing petition are generally less than a full trial. Your lawyer can give you a quote after reviewing the case.
How long does a quashing petition take in the High Court?
If the facts are clear and the court lists it quickly, a quashing petition can be decided in 2-6 months. However, delays are common — the actual timeline depends on the High Court's workload.
This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate about your specific situation.
Advocate Sudhir Rao, Supreme Court of India
Facing a similar matter? Speak to a criminal lawyer in Delhi — Advocate Sudhir Rao appears in bail, trial and appellate matters before the Delhi District Courts, the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India.