{"id":5230,"date":"2025-06-23T10:54:09","date_gmt":"2025-06-23T10:54:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=5230"},"modified":"2025-10-13T08:06:12","modified_gmt":"2025-10-13T08:06:12","slug":"misuse-of-criminal-law-in-commercial-patent-disputes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/misuse-of-criminal-law-in-commercial-patent-disputes\/","title":{"rendered":"Criminal Courts Should Not Be Misused To Settle Commercial Grievances"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procter_Gamble_Hygiene_and_Health_Care_Ltd_Anr_vs_State_of_Himachal_Pradesh_Ors\"><\/span>Procter &amp; Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd. &amp; Anr. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh &amp; Ors.<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Date of Order:<\/strong> 28 May 2025<br \/>\n<strong>Case Number:<\/strong> Cr. MMO No. 266 of 2024<br \/>\n<strong>Neutral Citation:<\/strong> 2025:HHC:16349<br \/>\n<strong>Name of Court:<\/strong> High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla<br \/>\n<strong>Name of Judge:<\/strong> Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/misuse-of-criminal-law-in-commercial-patent-disputes\/#Procter_Gamble_Hygiene_and_Health_Care_Ltd_Anr_vs_State_of_Himachal_Pradesh_Ors\" >Procter &amp; Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd. &amp; Anr. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh &amp; Ors.<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/misuse-of-criminal-law-in-commercial-patent-disputes\/#Overview\" >Overview<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/misuse-of-criminal-law-in-commercial-patent-disputes\/#Factual_Background\" >Factual Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/misuse-of-criminal-law-in-commercial-patent-disputes\/#Procedural_Background\" >Procedural Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/misuse-of-criminal-law-in-commercial-patent-disputes\/#Legal_Issue\" >Legal Issue<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/misuse-of-criminal-law-in-commercial-patent-disputes\/#Discussion_on_Judgments\" >Discussion on Judgments<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/misuse-of-criminal-law-in-commercial-patent-disputes\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Judge\" >Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/misuse-of-criminal-law-in-commercial-patent-disputes\/#Final_Decision\" >Final Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/misuse-of-criminal-law-in-commercial-patent-disputes\/#Law_Settled_in_This_Case\" >Law Settled in This Case<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Overview\"><\/span>Overview<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The present case before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh addressed whether a civil dispute over an alleged patent misuse could be converted into a criminal case. The judgment provides much-needed judicial clarity on the misuse of criminal proceedings for enforcing civil rights, particularly in patent-related matters, and on the legal principles guiding the quashing of an FIR under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The complainant (Respondent No. 3) in this case claimed to be a techno-innovator entrepreneur who developed and patented a method of dyeing textile products using natural extracts from neem and holy basil. According to the complainant, the invention was recognized nationally and internationally, and patents had been secured in India, the United States, and Europe.<\/p>\n<p>Seeking commercialization opportunities, the complainant submitted the patented technology to Procter &amp; Gamble (P&amp;G) under its Connect + Develop Program, with a proposal to use the technology in sanitary napkins and diapers.<\/p>\n<p>Initially, P&amp;G acknowledged receipt of the submission but subsequently informed the complainant that it would not pursue the proposal. However, P&amp;G later launched a product \u2014 &#8220;Whisper Ultra Clean (with herbal oil)&#8221; \u2014 which, according to the complainant, incorporated his patented process. He alleged that the use of neem oil in the product amounted to misappropriation of his innovation.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>On receiving no satisfactory explanation or resolution, the complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kandaghat, seeking a direction to register an FIR against P&amp;G and its executives under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 405 (criminal breach of trust), 415 and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code.<\/p>\n<p>The Magistrate, by order dated 30 December 2023, directed the Station House Officer (SHO), Kandaghat, to register the FIR and initiate investigation.<\/p>\n<p>Aggrieved by this order and the registration of FIR No. 02\/2024 dated 01 January 2024, the petitioners (P&amp;G) approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR and all related proceedings, arguing that the complaint was frivolous, lacked ingredients of a criminal offence, and was a clear abuse of process.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legal_Issue\"><\/span>Legal Issue<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The central issue for consideration before the High Court was whether the allegations made in the complaint, even if taken at face value, disclosed any prima facie case of criminal wrongdoing or whether the matter was purely civil in nature involving allegations of patent infringement, for which criminal law could not be invoked?<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Discussion_on_Judgments\"><\/span>Discussion on Judgments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The petitioners cited multiple landmark judgments to support their contention that the FIR should be quashed:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar<\/strong>, (2000) 4 SCC 168 \u2013 Mere breach of contract or civil wrong cannot be converted into a criminal case unless dishonest intention existed at the inception of the transaction.<\/li>\n<li><strong>G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad<\/strong>, (2000) 3 SCC 693 \u2013 Intention to deceive must exist at the time of inducement for an offence under Section 415 IPC to be made out.<\/li>\n<li><strong>State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal<\/strong>, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 \u2013 Listed categories under which criminal proceedings can be quashed, especially when allegations don&#8217;t disclose an offence.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre<\/strong>, (1988) 1 SCC 692 \u2013 Where chances of conviction are bleak and prosecution appears mala fide, quashing is justified.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra<\/strong>, (2021) 19 SCC 401 \u2013 Though judicial intervention at the investigation stage is limited, quashing is allowed in exceptional cases.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The respondents relied on:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar<\/strong>, (2006) 4 SCC 359<\/li>\n<li><strong>S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar<\/strong>, (2002) 1 SCC 241 \u2013 Arguing that if an FIR discloses a cognizable offence, investigation should proceed.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Judge\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Court analyzed the statutory provisions and case law governing the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. The Court noted that the allegations in the FIR related to the alleged misuse of a patented process involving herbal dyeing of textiles, which had been voluntarily submitted under a program where P&amp;G had explicitly disclaimed any confidentiality or obligation.<\/p>\n<p>The Court held that the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust require different mens rea and cannot coexist based on the same set of facts. Criminal breach of trust requires entrustment of property, while cheating requires fraudulent intention at inception. In this case, the Court found no entrustment or inducement that satisfied the legal requirements of either offence.<\/p>\n<p>It was observed that the essence of the complainant\u2019s grievance related to patent infringement \u2014 a matter governed by the Patents Act, 1970. The complainant had also issued a cease-and-desist notice but failed to pursue civil remedies. This indicated an attempt to misuse the criminal justice system as a tool of coercion.<\/p>\n<p>The Court further emphasized that neem, being a part of traditional Indian knowledge, cannot be monopolized through patent law. The use of neem in a proprietary herbal oil formulation by P&amp;G did not prima facie appear to infringe any specific patented process.<\/p>\n<p>Citing <strong>Lalit Chaturvedi v. State of U.P.<\/strong>, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 171, and <strong>Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P.<\/strong>, (2024) 10 SCC 690, the Court reiterated that civil disputes should not be converted into criminal cases, especially when the ingredients of criminal offences are absent.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision\"><\/span>Final Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 02\/2024 registered at Police Station Kandaghat and all consequential proceedings. The Court concluded that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioners, and continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The order passed by the Judicial Magistrate directing the registration of the FIR was also held to be unsustainable in law.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Law_Settled_in_This_Case\"><\/span>Law Settled in This Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>This case reinforces the legal position that patent infringement and related commercial disputes fall within the domain of civil law, and criminal proceedings cannot be initiated unless the statutory ingredients of offences such as cheating or breach of trust are clearly satisfied.<\/p>\n<p>It affirms that FIRs should not be registered in the absence of prima facie cognizable offences, and courts must quash proceedings that misuse the criminal justice system for private vendettas or business coercion. The judgment draws a clear boundary between civil remedies under IP law and criminal liability under the Indian Penal Code, ensuring that criminal courts are not misused to settle commercial grievances.<\/p>\n<p><b> Disclaimer:<\/b><br \/>\nThe information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/p>\n<p><b>Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/b>, IP Adjutor &#8211; Patent and Trademark Attorney<br \/>\nEmail: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Procter &amp; Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd. &amp; Anr. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh &amp; Ors. Date of Order: 28 May 2025 Case Number: Cr. MMO No. 266 of 2024 Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:16349 Name of Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla Name of Judge: Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla Overview The present case<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[110],"class_list":{"0":"post-5230","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-criminal-law","7":"tag-patent-law"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5230","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5230"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5230\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5230"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5230"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5230"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}