The judgment established the principle that the initiation of investigation into non-cognizable offences by the police and the inclusion of additional charges on the same allegations as specific Act sections were unsustainable under the law.

Amar Bir Singh Gill, J.

1. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 294, dated 3.8.1989 under Sections 78 and 79 of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (for short to be referred as "the Act") read with Section 420 IPC.

2. The facts giving rise to the present controversy are that one Kishan Kumar Jindal failed a complaint under Sections 78 and 79 of the Act which was endorsed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. vide order dated 10.5.1989, for inquiry with a further direction to seize the goods containing false trade marks from the person whoever found in possession of such goods and to take necessary action against such person or any other person found to be guilty of committing an offence punishable under Sections 78 and 79 of the Act. In complaint with the said directions, the police seized some iron girders and recorded DDR No. 38 dated 22.6.1989 in this respect alongwith bilty issued by Ashoka Akal Transport Company, G.T. Road, Mandi Gobindgarh. Thereafter, the police made a report that since offences under Sections 78 and 79 of the Act were non-cognizable and as such, the police could not proceed further. On receipt of the report of the Police, the Magistrate passed the following order on 27.7.1989 :-

"Heard. Report received. Perusal of the report shows that the offence of cheating was committed which is cognizable offence. Hence the case is remanded back to the S.H.O. concerned for necessary investigation, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Report be awaited for 5.8.89.

Sd/- CJM Hisar 27.7.89."

3. On receipt of the above order, formal FIR was registered against the petitioners. However, before the proceedings in the trial Court could commence, the parties entered into a compromise, Annexure P-2. Annexure P-3 is the composition deed, Annexure P-4 is the statement made by the complaint himself in this respect and Annexure P-5 is the statement of the petitioners. The Magistrate by the impugned order dated 12.12.1990, Annexure P-6, declined to accept the compromise. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order, Annexure P-6, as well as the proceedings including the FIR pending before the trial Court.

4. Shri R.S. Cheema, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has mainly contended that the procedure adopted by the Magistrate in directing the inquiry/investigation in a case, by the police, which was of non-cognizable offence, was not as per the provisions given in the Criminal Procedure Code. Admittedly, offence under Sections 78 and 79 of the Act being non-cognizable, the police could not investigate the same.

5. In a similar case reported as Zahir Ahmed v. Azam Khan, 1996 Crl. Law Journal 296, the Calcutta High Court observed as under :-

"8. To the alleged offence punishable under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. First the punishment prescribed for the aforesaid offence appear to be two years. Undeniably, the said alleged offences are clearly not cognizable offences. Such alleged offences could not be investigated by the police as cognizable offence as such. The Learned Magistrate could neither conceivably have directed investigation of such offences by the police under Section 156(3) of the Code, as he did by passing the relevant order dated 22.4.1994."

6. On receipt of the report from the police, the offence made out from the complaint was non-cognizable and the Magistrate passed second order re- directing further investigation in the offence under Section 420 IPC, by the police by holding, as already reproduced above, that "perusal of the report shows that the offence of cheating was committed which is cognizable offence". This was the judicial finding and as such further inquiry under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was not called for, whether an offence under Section 420 IPC is also attracted on the allegations which cover the commission of offence under Sections 78 and 79 of the Act. It is suffice t