A corporate entity cannot possess mens rea and cannot be held criminally liable for an offence requiring mens rea. Directors cannot be held vicariously liable for defamation without specific allegations of their involvement.

G. P. Mittal, J.

1. The Petitioners invoke inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) for quashing of the summoning order dated 07.11.2006 and the Criminal Complaint No.30/1 of 2005 titled M/s. Rameshwar Das Dwarkadas Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Raymond Limited & Others.

2. A complaint under Section 499 read with Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was preferred by the Respondent against the Petitioners on the allegations that the Respondent is the assignee of the trademark SUNSTAR. The trademark SUNSTAR is duly registered at number 1061264 with the trademark registry in the name of M/s. Unique Strategic Alliance. M/s. Unique Strategic Alliance by a deed of assignment dated 01.04.2005 transferred all rights in the earlier said trademark in favour of the Respondent. The first Petitioner (M/s. Raymond Limited and Ors.) served a legal notice dated 30.06.2005 Ex.CW-1/3 upon the Respondent alleging that it (Petitioner No.1) was the registered user of the trademark SUNFLOWER, JK, Sher, Rej, Three Files, Two Files etc. etc. The first Petitioner complained that use of the trademark SUNSTAR on the packaging case of the Files being manufactured by Unique Star Alliance and marketed by the Respondent and Econ International Pvt. Ltd. was infringement of the trademark belonging to the first Petitioner. Thus, the Respondent was required ?(i) to remove the words Sun‘ from the packages and/or at other places, if any and cease and desist from infringing the copyright vested in the artistic and literary work in Sunflower and all its other brands, with respect to Trademark and Label Mark; (ii) to surrender to Raymond for destruction without compensation the entire stock of your printing blocks, dyes, advertisement, packing materials, circulars and all other related materials bearing the identical or deceptively similar trademark and label mark of Sunflower and all its other brands, if any; (iii) to forthwith pay to Raymond at Mumbai a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) each towards damages; and (iv) to tender to Raymond an apology and furnish to us a written undertaking in a form approved by us, stating that you will henceforth desist from committing the impugned act.

3. The Respondent replied the earlier said notice denying that the Respondent was infringing the trademark SUNSTAR on the other hand the first Petitioner was informed that the SUNSTAR brand was being owned by the Respondent and was duly registered with the trade mark registry and if the first Petitioner had any objection to the registration, it could approach the trademark Registry. The first Respondent was, therefore, required to withdraw the notice and tender apology for issuing the ceased and desist notice. The first Petitioner was further informed that its action was against commercial morality and amounted to monopolistic trade practice. The Respondent, therefore, put the first Petitioner to notice to initiate appropriate proceedings against it (the first Petitioner) for intentionally issuing a notice to diminish the competitor in the market.

4. In the complaint the Respondent further alleged that a letter dated 03.06.2005 was written by the first Petitioner to one of Respondent’s customer informing that an injunction against use of the SUNSTAR mark had been issued by the Bombay High Court. According to the averments made in the complaint, the first Petitioner also issued some press releases regarding the injunction issued by the Bombay High Court against use of the SUNSTAR brand by any person. It was stated that a poster was also taken out by the first Petitioner whereby the persons engaged in the business of Files were given to understand that the Respondent was infringing the SUNFLOWER trademark of the first Petitioner by selling its Files with SUNSTAR brand. The Respondent, therefore, claimed this action of the Petitioners to be illegal and with intent to harm the Respondent’s reputation who had earned a gr