ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the registration of FIR No.739/2018 at police station City Kotwali, Durg alleging commission of offence under Section 420/34 of IPC read with Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, subsequent submission of final report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg which is registered as Criminal Case No.36770/2018. The police has filed charge-sheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg on 30.11.2018.

2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioners are that respondent No. 3, who is the owner of Jain Chuski Chai, has filed complaint before the Police Station, City Kotwali, Durg on 14.09.2018 alleging that the petitioners were projecting their products as ‘Goyal Chuski Chai’ which is violation of the Copyright Act. They are using his name without being registered before Registrar, Trade Marks. This is causing financial loss to them, therefore, FIR has been lodged. ‘Jain Chuski Chai’ is registered with Registrar, Trade Marks as well as Registrar, Copyright bearing Copyright registration No. is 87652/2009 dated 26.11.2009 and Trade Mark No. is 2109668 dated 04.03.2011 respectively. On the basis of complaint, the police has conducted raid on godown of the petitioners where wrappers printed with Goyal Chuski Gold filled with tea leaf were seized. The police took statement of the accused and found that offence under Section 63 of the Copy Right Act as well as offence under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 has been committed by the petitioners, therefore, offence under Section 420, 34 IPC read with Section 63 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 and Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act have been registered against the petitioners.

3. On the above factual matrix, the petitioners have filed present writ petition (criminal) challenging the registration of FIR and subsequent filing of final report contending that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the case, as the petitioners have already filed application for rectification before Registrar, Trade Marks on 10.09.2018 for registration of their tea leaf products, the application is still pending before the Registrar, Trade Marks, so, the registration of FIR is counter blast by respondent No. 3 against the petitioners. The petitioners have not committed violation of any Act.

4. It is further contended by the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 ordinarily resides at Mumbai and performs in film / television line. He has been falsely roped in the present case. Perusal of the wrappers of ‘Jain Chuski ’ and wrappers of ‘Goyal Chuski’ would show the difference. To demonstrate the same, he has annexed wrappers of both the companies. The petitioners have made complaint to the Inspector General of Police, Range Durg showing their innocence but their complaint has not been considered.

5. Respondent No. 3 has filed return. Respondent No. 3 would submit that the issue raised by the petitioners requires detail evidence and enquiry therefore, quashing of the FIR by this Court at this juncture will not be justified and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contention, he referred to judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Talangana vs. Habib, (2017) 2 SCC 779. He would further submit that since charge-sheet has already been filed the petitioners have opportunity under Section 239 Cr.P.C. to raise their objections with regard to framing of charges as such the present writ petition challenging the registration of FIR and subsequent filing of charges, deserves to be dismissed.

6. The State has also filed their return in which it has been contended that during the investigation, notice under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. was issued to the petitioner to produce valid documents relating to registration under Trade Marks Act. The petitioners have not submitted documents as sought by the police, hence, prima facie o