The central legal point established in the judgment is that the application of a trade mark must fit within the definition of 'goods' or 'services' as per the Trade Marks Act in order to constitute a false application of the trade mark. The court's decision was influenced by its interpretation of the Act's provisions and their application to the facts of the case.

JUDGMENT

MANISH PITALE J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for rival parties.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of First Information Report dated 16/09/2020 registered against him at Police Station Vishrambaug, Pune for offence under Section 103 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner contends that ingredients of the said offence are not made out in the facts and circumstances of the present case and that, therefore, the First Information Report deserves to be quashed.

3. The petitioner is a Journalist working with online news portal 'Newslaundry'. It is stated that he had earlier worked with other Media entities, including 'Sakal Times'. According to the petitioner, he specializes in investigative journalism and that he has been working in this field since the year 2012.

4. The aforesaid First Information Report has been registered against the petitioner at the behest of respondent No.2 (original informant), who is the Chief Administrative Officer of Sakal Group, which publishes newspapers in Marathi language called 'Sakal' and in English language called 'Sakal Times'. The respondent No.2 approached the police for registration of the First Information Report on 16/09/2020, claiming that the petitioner committed offence under Section 103 of the aforesaid Act by falsely applying trade mark of Sakal Group in two articles authored by him and published in the aforesaid news portal called 'Newslaundry'. The two articles were published on 27/03/2020 and 11/06/2020. In the said articles the registered trade mark of the Sakal Media Group and Sakal Times was shown with prominence at the top. In the article published on 27/03/2020, the heading was 'The future is bleak: Sakal Times staffers say they have been sacked in violation of Maharashtra order'. In the article published on 11/06/2020, the heading was 'They wanted to get rid of us : over 50 people laid off as Sakal Times closes down'. According to the respondent No.2 these were highly defamatory articles against the Sakal Media Group and that use of the official logos / trade mark of the Sakal Media Group and Sakal Times on these articles clearly amounted to falsely applying the said trade mark, thereby resulting in offence under Section 103 of the aforesaid Act. In the First Information Report, it was stated that the offence was committed from 27/03/2020 to 11/06/2020 and, as noted above, the First Information Report, stood registered after three months on 16/09/2020.

5. It is significant that prior to lodging the complaint, leading to registration of First Information Report, a legal notice dated 12/06/2020, was sent to the petitioner alleging that the Sakal Media Group was defamed by him and an amount of Rs.65,00,000/- was claimed from him. On 19/06/2020, the petitioner sent a reply to the said legal notice. On 03/09/2020, the Sakal Media Group filed a suit for injunction against the Newslaundry Media Pvt. Ltd. seeking an injunction against the said defendant and the petitioner for removing the said articles from the news portal. The said suit is pending.

6. The present writ petition was filed in October 2020, wherein notice was issued and it was directed that while the investigation shall continue, the charge-sheet could be filed only with the leave of this Court. Thereafter, on 27/01/2021, this Court recorded statement made on behalf of the petitioner that he would appear before the Investigating Officer on a specific date and it was directed that the Investigating Officer shall not insist for production of laptop and hard disk by the petitioner. The said interim orders continued during the pendency of the writ petition.

7. Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. Nipun Katyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that ingredients of the offence under Section 103 of the aforesaid Act were totally absent in the present case and that, therefo