Mere appropriation of unregistered data-driven campaign concepts fails to attract forgery or cheating under the IPC.

The Petitioner, an election consultant, sought to quash FIR No. 94 of 2020 registered at Patliputra P.S. for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 406, and 120-B of the IPC.

The Informant (Respondent No. 6) alleged that a former associate, Osama Khurshid, stole a laptop containing intellectual property regarding a political campaign titled "Bihar Ki Baat".

It was alleged that the Petitioner, acting as a conspirator, used this stolen data to launch a similar campaign titled "Baat Bihar Ki".

The Petitioner contended the data was sourced from public records and that the dispute was civil/commercial in nature.

Procedurally, the Informant had also filed a civil title suit on the same facts.

"forgery" requires the creation of a "false document" as defined in Section 464 IPC—meaning the accused must have executed a document claiming to be someone else or tampered with an existing one.

Regarding cheating, it relied on Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2015), requiring evidence of deception and dishonest inducement at the inception.

copyright does not subsist in an idea, theme, or title, but only in the specific expression thereof.

The Court observed that the basic requirement for Sections 467, 468, and 471 was absent because the Petitioner did not "make" or "execute" any false document; he was merely accused of using existing data.

Regarding Section 420, the Court found no evidence of "deception at inception" or "inducement" because there was no transaction between the Informant and the Petitioner; the laptop was allegedly taken by a third party (Osama).

The Court noted that the data—sourced from census and economic surveys—lacked the "novelty" or "originality" required for intellectual property protection.

Since the campaign concept was an "incorporeal idea," it could not be the subject of theft under IPC.

The Court concluded the Informant was attempting to give a "criminal colour" to a dispute for which he had already sought civil recourse.

The Court held that the phrase "intellectual property" cannot be used as an "incantation" to invoke criminal law for what is essentially an unprotected idea. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed Patliputra P.S. Case No. 94 of 2020 and all consequential proceedings against the Petitioner to prevent the abuse of the process of law.