BANKIM N. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has, by this petition filed under art. 226 of the Constitution of India, made a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order for quashing and setting aside the order dated 16-8-2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First class, Sanand directing the Police Sub-Inspector of Sanand to inquire under Sec. 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, into the complaint lodged by the petitioner against fourteen accused named therein for alleged commission of offences under Secs. 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 read with Secs. 120b and 114 of Indian Penal Code and submit report to the Court within 30 days and has further prayed the Court to direct the Police Sub-Inspector, Sanand Police station to investigate under Sec. 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in brief code ).

( 2 ) THE facts of the case emerging from the record are that the petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sanand against fourteen accused named therein for the offences alleged to have been committed under Secs. 419 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 read with Secs. 120b, 34 and 114 of Indian Penal Code inter alia on the ground that the petitioner had permitted one M/s. New Ramdev Masala Factory wherein accused No. 1 Mr. Jasvantbhai somabhai Patel was one of the partners to use the Trade Mark "ramdev" for a period of seven years pursuant to user agreement dated 4-6-1990, but the factory of M/s. New Ramdev Masala Factory was closed from 30-5-1994 which is clear from the affidavit filed before Sales Tax Department and the Income Tax Returns, and thus, there was no business in the name and style of M/s. New Ramdev masala Factory. According to the petitioner, the accused No. 1 joined the petitioner-company as General Manager and borrowed some amounts for his personal use from the company and gave eight cheques against the repayment of the said amount, but the cheques were dishonoured when presented for encashment, and therefore, complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act were filed as well as a civil suit was also filed for the recovery of outstanding amount. It is averred in the complaint that in the civil proceedings, the Court granted conditional leave to defend the suit to the accused No. 1 which order was challenged before this Court which was confirmed and Letters Patent Appeal, filed against the order of the learned single Judge of the High Court was also dismissed. As per the complaint, the accused No. 1 had executed forged partnership documents with the help of other accused, and therefore, accused have committed offences enumerated in the complaint. In the complaint, a prayer was made to direct investigation under Sec. 156 (3) of the Code. The learned Magistrate after verification refused investigation under Sec. 156 (3) of the Code and ordered the police Sub-Inspector, Sanand to make inquiry under Sec. 202 of the Code and submit a report within 30 days to the Court, giving rise to this petition.

( 3 ) MR. Raju, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant is the owner of the Trade Mark whereas the accused had created forged documents with a view to usurping the Trade Mark as those documents which are in possession of the accused are required to be seized, investigation under Sec. 156 (3) should have been ordered. According to him, the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate are not germane for ordering inquiry under sec. 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and as the learned Magistrate has not properly exercised the discretion, the petition should be allowed. It is argued that there is non-application of mind and as custodial interrogation would be required, necessary direction should be issued to investigate complaint of the petitioner under Sec. 156 (3) of the Code.

( 4 ) LEARNED Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Patel has not made any oral submissions and stated at the Bar that the Court ma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document