Section 528 BNSS: Allahabad High Court Quashes Cheating Case, Relief for Exporter Accused of “Imitating” Medicines [Read Order]
- Devesh Saxena
- Dec 17, 2025
- 5 min read
What happens when a purely commercial dispute is given a criminal colour? The Allahabad High Court recently answered this question in a significant order by invoking Section 528 BNSS, thereyby granting complete relief to the applicant by quashing the entire criminal proceedings, chargesheet and summoning order in a cheating and forgery case arising out of alleged export of "imitated" medicines, holding that the dispute squarely fell within the Trade Marks Act and not the Indian Penal Code.
At S&D Legal Associates, we had the privilege of representing the Applicant and securing this decisive relief. This order is an important reminder that criminal law cannot be misused as a pressure tactic in business competition.
Business Rivalry Wrongfully Shaped as Criminal Case
An FIR was lodged by the informant, alleging that the Applicant’s firm was exporting medicines “pertaining to” the informant’s company by imitating its products without proper authorisation, and offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC were invoked. The Applicant, a partner of a firm engaged exclusively in export of "non‑patented generic medicines", demonstrated that all exports were made under valid wholesale drug licence and Import-Export Certificates (IEC), through reputed Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) ‑compliant manufacturers, with customs clearances and no objection ever raised by Indian or Mozambican authorities. The petition under Section 528 BNSS was filed to quash the entire criminal proceedings, chargesheet and summoning order. The Applicant pleaded that the case was a classic example of a commercial rivalry being given a criminal colour, as the informant’s company earlier exported similar generic medicines to Mozambique and treated the applicant’s firm as a direct competitor.
Pleas taken by the Applicant
The core argument advanced on behalf of the Applicant was that, even if the FIR is taken at face value, the allegations relate at best to issues under intellectual property and trade mark laws and do not disclose the essential ingredients of cheating or forgery under the IPC. It was highlighted that the informant’s company did not hold any patent or registered trade mark over the generic medicines in question, and therefore could not claim exclusivity so as to allege “replication” as a criminal offence. The application also pointed out that the investigation had gone beyond the FIR: successive statements under Section 161 CrPC introduced unwarranted additions, inflated alleged loss figures and sought to completely change the original version to prop up a criminal case where none existed. The applicant further relied on settled Supreme Court jurisprudence that criminal proceedings aimed at arm‑twisting or business one‑upmanship constitute an abuse of process and are liable to be quashed.
Key Observations by the Allahabad High Court
After hearing all parties and examining the record, the Hon’ble Court made the following important observations:
1. Allegations Attract Trade Marks Law, Not IPC
The Court categorically held that the allegations regarding imitation or branding of pharmaceutical products, even if assumed to be correct, would fall within the scope of the Trade Marks Act.
Invoking penal provisions of the IPC in such circumstances was held to be legally impermissible.
2. Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Used in Business Rivalry
The Court took note of the commercial relationship and competition between the parties and observed that the criminal proceedings appeared to be motivated by business rivalry rather than criminal intent.
This reaffirmed the settled legal position that criminal law cannot be employed as an arm-twisting mechanism in commercial disputes.
3. Material Improvements and Contradictions in the Prosecution Case
The Hon’ble Court also observed that the FIR and subsequent statements recorded during investigation were not consistent, and that later versions contained clear improvements over the original allegations.
Such inconsistencies were found to weaken the prosecution case at its very foundation.
4. Mechanical Cognizance by the Trial Court
The Court further held that the trial court had taken cognizance and issued summons without due application of judicial mind, thereby resulting in an abuse of the process of law.
Final Outcome: Quashing of Entire Criminal Proceedings under Section 528 BNSS
Invoking its powers under Section 528 BNSS, which corresponds to the High Court’s inherent power to secure the ends of justice, the Court quashed:
The chargesheet filed against the Applicant.
The summoning order issued against the Applicant
The entire criminal proceedings pending before the ACJM‑I, Saharanpur.
With this, the Application under Section 528 BNSS was allowed, bringing an end to the criminal case that had arisen from what was, in essence, a commercial and trade‑mark‑related dispute between competing exporters. The order reinforces that criminal law cannot be used as a shortcut to settle business rivalries or to gain leverage in commercial competition, especially in sectors like export of generic medicines.
Key - Takeaway from this Order
This decision is a significant affirmation of the principle that intellectual property and trade mark disputes must ordinarily be addressed within their own statutory framework rather than being dressed up as offences under cheating or forgery provisions. For businesses facing similar situations, this order serves as a strong judicial precedent.
For exporters and pharmaceutical businesses, the ruling underscores the importance of maintaining robust licensing, compliance documentation and transparent supply chains, which can be crucial in demonstrating bona fides when faced with motivated complaints.
The order also sends a strong signal that High Courts will not hesitate, under Section 528 BNSS quashing jurisdiction, to terminate prosecutions that rest on embellished statements and shifting allegations rather than on clear, prima facie material satisfying the ingredients of offences under IPC/BNS.
For individuals and companies targeted through such proceedings, it reaffirms that the higher judiciary remains a vital safeguard against the misuse of criminal process as a tool of harassment.
Spread Awareness. Know Your Rights.
At S&D Legal Associates, we consistently advocate against the misuse of criminal law in commercial matters. This case is a reminder that strategic litigation and timely invocation of Section 528 BNSS can make the difference between years of unnecessary criminal trial and timely relief through a targeted Section 528 BNSS quashing petition, thus preventing prolonged harassment and irreparable reputational damage.
If you or your business are facing similar criminal proceedings arising out of trademark, business rivalry or commercial disputes, this Allahabad High Court order illustrates that quashing is not just a theoretical remedy—it can be practically and successfully invoked where the record shows abuse of process. Early, well‑documented engagement with competent counsel can make the difference between years of unnecessary criminal trial and timely relief through a targeted Section 528 BNSS quashing petition.
This case is a reminder to informants and investigating agencies alike: stretching commercial grievances into criminal charges not only undermines the justice system but may also invite strict judicial scrutiny and rejection at the High Court level.
Read Order:
The Application before the Allahabad High Court was argued by Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Swetashwa Agarwal. The Applicant was represented by Mr. Devesh Saxena, Mr. Utkarsh Shubham and Mrs. Hrishina Khare, all Advocates at S&D Legal Associates.
Comments