Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.
Subhash Chand Bansal – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and Another – Respondents
CRM-M No. 18628 of 2017
Decided On : 13-07-2023
Trademark Dispute - Quashing of FIR - Sections 63, 65, 67 of the Copyrights Act, Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 63, 65, 67 of the Copyrights Act and Section 420 IPC (later replaced by Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999) for alleged violation of a judgment and decree related to a trademark dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trademark dispute had been settled in favor of the petitioner, and the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2017 had been set aside by a Coordinate Bench. The court concluded that the continuation of the FIR would amount to an abuse of the process of law and miscarriage of justice.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of the FIR in light of the settled trademark dispute and the subsequent judgment setting aside the earlier decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles outlined in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, emphasizing that the FIR did not constitute a cognizable offense and that its continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking quashing of FIR No. 0133 dated 01.04.2017, registered at Police Station Kaithal City, District Kaithal, under Sections 63, 65, 67 of the Copyrights Act and Section 420 IPC (Subsequently Section 420 IPC was deleted and Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was added), final report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner.
2. Bansal Cotton & Oil Mills of which the petitioner was the proprietor was embroiled in a litigation with regard to trademarks with one Keshav Oil and Cotton Ginning Industries Private Limited of which respondent No. 2 was the director. Both Bansal Cotton & Oil Mills and Keshav Oil and Cotton Ginning Industries Private Limited were engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of cattle feed, oil cakes, seeds etc. Both sides claimed to have been using the trade mark “DO GAI CHHAP.” As per Bansal Cotton & Oil Mills, this trademark was being used by one M/s Madan Lal Hans Raj and was lateron assigned to Bansal Cotton & Oil Mills for consideration whereas Keshav Oil and Cotton Ginning Industries Private Limited claimed to have been using the said trademark since 1972. A civil suit was filed by Keshav Oil and Cotton Ginning Industries Private Limited against Bansal Cotton & Oil Mills which was decreed. RFA No. 1654 of 2017 was preferred by Bansal Cotton & Oil Mills in which operation of the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2017 was stayed. However, in the meantime, the FIR in question was got registered by respondent No. 2-complainant alleging that the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2017 (Annexure P-1) was being disregarded by the petitioner. The contents of the FIR are as under:
Subject: Request regarding registration of case against Bansal Cotton and Oil Mill, Kaithal, Subhash Bansal, Sachin and other employees. Sir, I had filed a case in the name of Keshav Oil and Cotton Jinning Industries Private Limited, Bhiwani Road Hansi vs. Bansal Cotton and Oil Mill, Kaithal (Subhash Bansal). I had filed this case in the court at Hisar. This case was decided in our favour on 01.03.2017 by the court of District Judge, Hisar and direction were given to the respondent that he shall not use our mark i.e. “do Gaye Chap Khal” and Cotton Oil. Now also the respondent is using my mark do gaye chap in his business even after the decision. Now it is requested that a case under Trade Mark Act, Copy Right Act and Section 420 of the IPC was registered against the respondent. The respondent may be prevented from using our mark do gaye chap in his business and those bags with the respondent which have our mark printed on them, printed empty bags, goods with our mark may be taken into possession and after registering the case the respondent may be arrested and legal proceeding may be initiated. We shall be gratefull Keshav Oil and Cotton Jinning Industries Pvt. Ltd. Bhiwaqni Road Hansi. Director Shri Parmod Kumar Garg Son of Sh. Madan Lal Garg resident of Mohalla Choadhari Yan Hansi District Hisar 8940037050, 8901030000. Today Police Station : on perusal of the complaint offences under Section 420 and 63, 65, 67 of the Copy Right Act have been found to be committed, case against the aforesaid may be registered and copy may be put in the record, original request may be forwarded to officers for further proceedings through S.01 Ajay Partap No. 1057 1/C CIA KTL and copies of the FIR has been forwarded by post to the officer.”
3. Separate replies to the petition were filed by the respondents opposing the same.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the case file.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR is completely illegal as the same had been got registered for alleged violation of the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2017, the ope
The main legal point established is that the continuation of criminal proceedings, such as an FIR, after the settlement of a civil dispute and the setting aside of a judgment and decree, may amount t....
Successive acts of copyright infringement provide fresh cause of action; courts exercise quashing powers sparingly, primarily focusing on whether the allegations constitute a cognizable offense.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the abuse of process of law and the quashment of F.I.R. based on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the complaint disclosing an offence under the Trademark Act, which is cognizable, prevents the quashing of proceedings under Section 63 of ....
The legality of trademark use in business disputes can be enforced through civil agreements, impacting criminal proceedings.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
