The judgment emphasizes the importance of fair investigation and the potential abuse of the legal process in trademark disputes, particularly when civil remedies are available.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred against an order dated 16.01.2019 passed in Shyampukur P.S. E.B. Case No. 28 of 2009 by the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta under Sections 120B/420 of the Indian Penal Code and 103, 104 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999.

2. The said order is in respect of a prayer for reinvestigation by the defacto complainant vide petition dated 11.04.2016.

3. The Court vide its order dated 16.01.2019 held as follows:

“..........This Court is of the view that effective investigation has been done in the present case and no worthwhile purpose would be served in directing further investigation as there is mistake of fact. To sum up, there exists no cogent ground to allow the prayer for reinvestigation and accordingly the application dated 11.04.2016 filed by the defacto complainant praying for reinvestigation merits to be rejected.

Hence, it is,

Ordered

That the application dated 11.04.2016 filed by the de facto complainant Amaresh Banerjee praying for reinvestigation of this instant case is considered and rejected.

The FRMF being no. 52/2015 dated 11.07.15 against the accused persons Amal Majumder, Bappa Ghosh, Lakshman Dutta, J.B. Roy, A.V. Joshi, S.K. Ghosh and Company, Nandi Brothers, as submitted by the IO stands accepted.

The accused persons who are not sent up in the charge-sheet are hereby discharged from this instant case and also discharged from their bail bonds if any.

The instant case stands dropped accordingly.

Return CD.

Sd/-

Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-1

Calcutta.”

4. The petitioner herein being the complainant states that he is a manufacturer of coaltar under its trade name “Anchor” with specific colour and art-work and caries on its business of manufacturing, selling and marketing and the place of business is 159, B.K. Pal Avenue, Kolkata-5.

5. The said trade mark was originally held in the name of Aruna Banerjee, the mother of the petitioner on the original registration date 17.03.1950, who carried on the business under the name and style M/s Sekhar and Co. at 5/1, Nirode Behari Mullick Road, Habibag, Calcutta.

6. Subsequently, the said trade mark was transmitted and assigned in favour of the petitioner since about 1st August, 1975 and the same has been renewed from time to time and lastly renewed on and from 17th March, 2007 for ten years in favour of the petitioner bearing the original trade mark registration no. 1142850 and as such the petitioner is the registered proprietor of the said trade mark and entitled to all its benefits under the law of trade mark.

7. The petitioner also obtained the copy right registration certificate from copy right board i.e. the Government of India Copy Right office, bearing certificate no. A-72756/2005 dated 04.05.2005.

8. It is further stated that the opposite party no. 1 is carrying on his business of coaltar under the name and style M/S Tara Tar Products as proprietor.

9. On 3rd May, 2008, for the first time the petitioner discovered that the opposite party no. 1 with the wrongful intention of capturing the market of “Anchor” brand coaltar started to copy the same identical trade mark by falsifying the art work of the petitioner’s trade mark and used the same by selling the coaltar under the said trade mark to the unlimited detriment of the petitioner.

10. The petitioner requested the opposite party no. 1 not to do the mischief but in spite of that the opposite party no. 1 did not stop the sale and marketing of the said coaltar.

11. The petitioner then filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. initiating the present proceedings in this case.

12. It is submitted that the investigating officer filed a final report from which it appeared that the investigation was not properly done.

13. On 11th April, 2016 the petitioner filed an application praying for re-investigation/ further investigation before the learned Trial Court.

14. On 16.01.2019, the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta p