The High Court's inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings is limited. It cannot interfere where allegations disclose a prima facie offence involving fraud or deception affecting the public, as disputed factual questions must be adjudicated by the trial court through evidence.

ORDER :

B.P. Sharma, J.

The present petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of the criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No. 443/2021 registered at Police Station Chargawan, District Jabalpur for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code along with Sections 51, 63 and 68 of the Copyright Act, 1957, The petitioners seek quashment of the First Information Report and the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the competent trial court on the ground that the allegations made in the FIR do not disclose the commission of any offence and that the continuation of the criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law.

2. The factual background leading to the present petition reveals that on 19.12.2021 a written complaint was submitted by Respondent No.2 before Police Station Chargawan, District Jabalpur alleging that the petitioners were engaged in manufacturing PVC pipes and related plastic products through their industrial establishment known as Polyset Pipe Industries. It was alleged that the petitioners had dishonestly manufactured and circulated PVC pipes in the market by falsely using the brand identity and reputation associated with Jain Irrigation Systems Limited and thereby misleading consumers into believing that the products were genuine goods manufactured or authorized by the said company. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered the aforementioned FIR and initiated investigation into the allegations. After completion of investigation, the investigating agency filed a charge-sheet before the competent court indicating that prima facie material existed on record to proceed against the petitioners for the offences alleged.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners are running a duly registered industrial unit engaged in manufacturing plastic pipes and allied products and that the said unit possesses necessary statutory registrations including GST registration, MSME registration and consent from the Pollution Control Board. It has been argued that the petitioners have been carrying out legitimate manufacturing activities and that the criminal proceedings have been initiated with mala fide intention arising out of commercial rivalry. It is further contended that the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code are not satisfied as there was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners and no deception was practiced upon the complainant or the public at large. According to the petitioners, the dispute, if any, pertains merely to alleged infringement of trademark or copyright and therefore, the dispute is essentially civil in nature. On these grounds, the petitioners pray that the FIR and the consequent criminal proceedings be quashed.

4 . Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State and the complainant has opposed the petition and submitted that the allegations contained in the FIR clearly disclose commission of cognizable offences which require thorough adjudication by the trial court. It has been contended that the FIR contains specific allegations regarding the petitioners manufacturing and selling PVC pipes by misusing the brand identity associated with Jain Irrigation Systems Limited and thereby deceiving consumers. It is further submitted that the investigation conducted by the police has resulted in the collection of documentary and material evidence supporting the allegations and that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent court.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents further contended that the present case is not a mere dispute relating to use of a deceptively similar mark or alleged infringement of copyright, but involves serious allegations of cheating and deception practiced upon consumers in the c