1. Petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [in brief “the Code”] has been filed for quashment of FIR under section 420 of IPC and under section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 [in brief “the Act, 1957"] registered at Police Station Sadar Bazar, Indore and subsequent proceedings before JMFC, Indore in Criminal Case No.19746/2014 against the applicants.

2. Non-applicant No.2/complainant has filed a written complaint against the applicants alleging that they are using the brand name “SENTINEL” for their electric products; whereas the trade mark has been registered by “M/s. Vertex Manufacturing Co.Pvt.Ltd.”. Thus, they are misusing the trade mark and cheating the customers as well as the Company by selling fake electric products. On this basis, Police Station Sadar Bazar, Indore registered a Crime No.12/2014 for the offence under section 420 of IPC and under section 63 of the Act, 1957 against the applicants. The police has seized the fake electric products from possession of the applicants and after completing the investigation submitted final report before the JMFC, Indore. Before the Magistrate, the applicants have raised the objection that the trade mark is not registered in the Company’s name, therefore, they be discharged. However, learned Magistrate rejected the objection and framed the charges under section 420 of IPC and under section 63 of the Act, 1957 against the applicants.

3. The applicants averted in this petition that initially SENTINEL trade mark was registered in favour of the Vertex through Proprietor N.K. Bhimani which was removed on 11.8.2008 and on 9.3.2013 applicant No.1 has made an application under section 23 (2), rule 62(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 [in brief “the Act, 1999]. However, M/s. Vertex Manufacturing Co.Pvt.Ltd. on 18.7.2013 has filed an application for registration of the trade mark over SENTINEL. It is further averted that without any power or authority, the Vertex Company entered into an agreement with the complainant Mr. Sachidanand Chitale; whereas the trade mark SENTINEL was expired on 11.8.2008. Therefore, such an agreement being void ab initio. Thus, the applicants have not committed any offence which is punishable under section 63 of the Act, 1957 or under section 420 of IPC. If there is any infringement of right of the complainant then the action may be taken under the Act, 1999. Section 115 of the Act, 1999 provides a specific procedure for taking cognizance but the procedure has not been complied, therefore, the Court cannot take cognizance for the offence under the Act, 1999. In such circumstances to continue such prosecution against the applicants is misuse of process of law.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have not committed any offence under section 63 of the Act, 1957 and under section 420 of IPC. However, it may be a case of infringement of right under the Act, 1999. Section 115 of the Act, 1999 provides that an offence under sections 107, 108 or 109, the Court can take cognizance on complaint in writing made by the Registrar and police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police is authorized for search and seizure. But in the present case no such procedure has been followed.

5. It is further submitted that the complainant has not produced certificate of registration contemplated under section 23 of the Act, 1999 or entry in register contemplated under section 45 of the Act, 1957. It appears that SENTINEL trade mark has not been registered in the name of Vertex Co. In similar facts, Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Anil Kumar v. State of Punjab, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-9229 of 2009 decided on 22.3.2011 and in the case of Satpal v. State of Punjab, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-23090 of 2009 decided on 11.10.2010, held that offence under section 63 of the Act, 1957 and under section 420 of IPC has not been made out and quashed the proceedings.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants su