JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - The present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') has been preferred for quashing the chargesheet as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.2323 of 2012, State Vs. Madan Lal Kankaria and Others, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar (for short 'the case').

2. In the case after receipt of the chargesheets, cognizance was taken and on 03.04.2012, the petitioner and other co-accused have been summoned under sections 479, 481, 482 and 483 IPC and section 63 of Copyright Act, 1957 (for short 'Copyright Act).

3. Brief facts of the case are as hereunder:-

Respondent no.2 filed an FIR on 03.09.2010 against Madan Lal Kankaria and others under sections 479, 481, 482 and 483 IPC and section 63 of Copyright Act. According to it, respondent no.2 is the Managing Director of Indian Herbs Research and Supply Company, Shardanagar, Saharanpur (for short 'the Company') The company entered into an agreement with the petitioner in connection with distribution of the products of the company with the understanding that the composition of the finished products and other information shall be kept secret. The agreement was in existence for a long but thereafter, the petitioner in order to get more profits and to cause damage to the company, under a criminal conspiracy with the co-accused leaked the secret information with regard to composition, etc. and illegally used the property trademark and copyright of the company. He leaked this information to M/s Padmawati Pharmaceuticals Haridwar and also gave the logo of the company to M/s Padmawati Pharmaceuticals. Respondent no.2 visited the premises of M/s Padmawati Pharmaceuticals. There, they found the products manufactured with the logo of the company. When questioned, it was informed that under the directions of the petitioner, logo is being used. With these and other related averments, FIR was lodged. After investigation, chargesheet has been submitted and proceedings of the case was instituted. The present petition challenges the proceedings of the case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no offence has been made out; there has been no intention of the petitioner to cheat. The following points have also been raised by learned counsel in his arguments:-

(i) Petitioner applied for a logo under the Copyright Act.

(ii) The trademark registry informed that the logo has not been registered in any other name under the Trade marks Act, 1994 (for short 'The Trademark Act')

(iii) Petitioner runs his business in Austria, where his logo is registered.

(iv) Respondent no.2 filed objection with the Austrian Authority which indicate that the dispute is civil in nature.

5. It is argued that in the agreement, there is an arbitration clause. Respondent no.2 could have invoked the arbitration clause; there is no element of criminality.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the proceeding of the case deserves to be quashed. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the principles of law as laid down in the case of Hridaya Rangan Pd. Verma and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another, 2000 2 SCR 859 . In this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, held as hereunder:-

"In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time to inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had