1. The only short question that arises for consideration in the present petition is whether accused person is entitled in law to lead defence evidence in a private complaint case before framing of charge against him.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to the above question are that the petitioner was the complainant before the trial Court and he had filed a private complaint under section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure for offence under section 103 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 and had alleged infringement of his registered trade mark "G-5" in relation to educational institution run by him and it was alleged that respondents No.1 to 5 by using the trade mark "G-5 Gwalior" in relation to educational institution run by them have committed an offence punishable under section 103 of Trade Marks Act, 1999. After pre-summoning evidence was produced by the petitioner being the complainant, cognizance was taken by the trial Court against respondents No.1 to 5 and they were summoned for offence under section 103 of Trade Marks Act, 1999. There is a controversy between the complainant on one hand and respondent No. 1 to 5 on the other hand regarding infringement of trade mark in question. The use of trade mark "G-5" by the petitioner and "G-5 Gwalior" by respondents No.1 to 5 is not in dispute. After respondents No.1 to 5 were summoned by the trial Court after taking cognizance against them, the witnesses examined by the petitioner/ complainant in pre-summoning evidence were cross-examined on their behalf. However, respondents No.1 to 5 were aggrieved by their summoning by the trial Court and had filed a petition under section 482 of Cr.PC. for quashing of criminal proceedings on the private complaint instituted by the petitioner against them and the said petition filed by respondents No. 1 to 5 was finally disposed of by this Court to consider the following points before framing of charge:

"(1) Whether, any application has been filed by the respondents and the petitioners No.3 to 5 and Mr. R.C. Jain for registration of Trade Mark "G-5" in the name of all the five persons?

(2) Whether, the Trade Mark "G-5" stood granted in favour of five persons in their individual names and whether that Trade Mark cannot be used by the petitioners without complainant's prior permission or consent?

(3) Whether, any regulation was laid down at the time or registration of Trade Mark "G-5"?

(4) Whether, on 12.3.2007 the petitioners No.3 to 5 applied for registration of another Trade Mark used by them being "G-5 Gwalior" in, the offence of Registrar of Trade Marks.

(5) Whether, the Trade Marks "G-5" and "G-5 Gwalior" are different. First in the joint names of five persons including complainant and second in the joint names of petitioners?

3. The need for the petitioners to file the present petition arose because respondents No.1 to 5 intend to lead evidence in their defence to establish that they have not infrigned the trade mark of the petitioner/complainant as alleged by him in his complaint. Respondents No.1 to 5 have been permitted by the trial Court vide order impugned in the present petition to lead their evidence in defence on the aforementioned points, which were ordered to be considered by this Court vide its order dated 11th May 2010 in MCr.C. No. 2914/10. The said order of the trial Court permitting respondents No.1 to 5/ accused person to lead their evidence in defence before framing of charge has also been affirmed by the sessions Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It appears that respondents No.1 to 5 have been permitted to lead their defence evidence before framing of charge under some misconception misconstruing the earlier order of the High Court as if the trial Court has been directed by this Court to take evidence on the points formulated in its earlier order dated 11th May 2010 extracted herein above.

4. Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5/accused persons has re