JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Deepankar Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No.2.

3. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party-State.

4. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“For quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C1 Case No. 2410 of 2017 (Arising out of G.R. Case No. 1102 of 2017) filed by opposite party no.2 for offence u/s 193, 195, 196, 209, 211, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 482 & 500 of Indian Penal Code & Section 78 of Trade and Merchandise Act including order dated 06.04.2019 passed by Sr. M.M. Pradhan, Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, whereby and where under cognizance has been taken for the offences under section 417, 465, 471, 482 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, and further summons have been issued against the petitioners, and the said case is now pending in the court of Sri M.M. Pradhan, Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur.”

Arguments of the petitioners

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire criminal proceedings including order taking cognizance in the present case is an abuse of the process of law. He submits that the complainant is the wife of Santosh Verma who is admittedly an accused in another case being Complaint Case No. 19/2016, which was sent for investigation by police. The learned counsel submits that it has been mentioned in the present complaint itself that the said complaint case was filed and the allegation in the present case is that forged documents were filed in the earlier complaint case being Complaint Case No. 19/2016. He submits that the complainant had filed Complaint Case No. 592/2017 making identical allegation and the same was sent for investigation by police and the present case arises out of protest petition filed by the complainant against final Report No. 131/2017 dated 30.05.2017.

6. The learned counsel submits that there is also allegation of infringement of trade mark and a suit was instituted by the accused of the present case against the husband of the complainant being Original Suit No. 07/2016, wherein a decree was passed in favour of the accused of the present case under the provisions of Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the defendants of the suit i.e., the husband of the complainant of the present case, has been permanently injuncted and directed to deliver and destroy all packets having the plaintiff’s registered trade mark being either ‘CHHAGANLAL’ OR ‘CHHAGANLAL DAYALJEE’ and permanently restraining them from using the trade mark, namely, ‘CHHAGANLAL’ OR ‘CHHAGANLAL DAYALJEE’. The learned counsel submits that the matter regarding trade mark dispute in the name and style of ‘CHHAGANLAL’ OR ‘CHHAGANLAL DAYALJEE’ has been decreed in favour of the present accused persons in the original Suit No. 07/2016 and accordingly, the present case is an abuse of the process of law. He submits that the entire proceedings is fit to be setaside.

7. The learned counsel has further referred to the impugned order taking cognizance and submits that cognizance has been taken under Sections 417, 465, 471, 482 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and submits that the perusal of the order taking cognizance dated 06.04.2019 reflects non-application of judicial mind as no satisfaction as such has been recorded.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2021) 5 SCC 435 (Krishna Lal Chawla and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another), para-16 onwards, to submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has elaborately dealt with the duty of the court while issuing process. He has also referred to another judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cri. Appeal No. 1288/2021 dated 29.11.2021 to submit that in a complaint case, the order taking cognizance has to be speaking order. The le