SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Raj) 1672

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Sanjay Gupta - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1856 of 2009
Decided On : 27-07-2021

Advocates appeared:
S.D. Purohit, Advocate, Vikram Sharma, Advocate, Veyankatesh Garg, Advocate, Sunil Beniwal, Advocate

The court established that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not permit the examination of mens rea at the stage of quashing charges, reserving such determinations for trial.

Headnote:

[CRIMINAL LAW] - [QUASHING OF CHARGES] - [The court addressed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash charges of cheating and conspiracy, emphasizing that the petitioner’s involvement was based on instructions from the main accused. The court found no grounds for discharge at this stage, indicating that the determination of mens rea would be reserved for trial.]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to quash charges under Sections 420 & 120-B IPC and Section 78 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, claiming he acted under the orders of the main accused, Nikunj Doshi, and was not responsible for the alleged offenses.

Finding of the Court:

The court concluded that there were no sufficient grounds to discharge the petitioner at this stage, noting that the determination of guilt or innocence would be made during the trial.

Issues: Whether the petitioner could be held liable for the charges based solely on the information provided by the main accused and whether the element of mens rea should be considered at this stage.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not allow for an examination of mens rea at the pre-trial stage, and the framing of charges was appropriate given the circumstances.

Result: The petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were also dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred seeking quashing of the charge under Sections 420 & 120-B IPC and Section 78 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and its connected criminal proceedings pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udaipur in Criminal Case No.434/2003.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petitioner is not responsible for the offence in question, because he was only acting, in relation to the usage of the trademark in question, as per the orders of main accused Nikunj Doshi, the proprietor of M/s. Alied Chemicals.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned FIR was submitted by one Dilip Karde, on behalf of the M/s. Henze India Private Limited, Mumbai, alleging therein that his Company was manufacturing Glucon-D and it was being designed and packed according to their trademark, which was registered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in the FIR, it has also been alleged that M/s. Alied Chemicals was selling a similar article by name of Glucose-D , which is contravention of the law. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner s name did not figure in the FIR, and it was only on the information of Nikunj Doshi that the petitioner was arrested on the ground that he prepared the packing boxes of the article, despite the fact that he did so only as per the orders of Nikunj Doshi himself.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner ought not to have been arrayed as an accused in this case only on the information of the main accused, and more particularly, when the petitioner himself had admitted that he was preparing the boxes on the sole instructions of main accused Nikunj Doshi.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that nothing in the framing of charge or in the connected criminal proceedings warrant discharge of the present petitioner in this case at this stage. It is a separate thing that during course of the trial, the final fate of the petitioner shall be decided, without the learned court below getting prejudiced by this dismissal.

8. This Court is also of the opinion that the element of mens rea ought not be examined at this stage, under the inherent jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C.

9. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications also stand dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top