IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that prima facie evidence exists to support allegations of trademark infringement and cheating, necessitating further investigation and trial.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No. 2 in Cr. No. 139 of 2024 before the Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (for short ‘TRA Act’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that since 1995 he has been one of the partners of the restaurant named “Santosh Dhaba Exclusive” and since 2013 he possesses trademark rights for the name ‘Santosh Dhaba” vide trade mark application No. 2391012. However, he came to know that some persons are imitating, falsifying and infringing on his trade mark of “Santosh Dhaba” by using identical and similar names or using prefix and suffix in the names of the restaurant situated in Madhapur area i.e. (1) “Santosh Veg Family Dhaba” situated at H.No. 1-48/1, Metro Pillar No. C1740, Kummari basti, near Raghavendra Food Courts, beside Queens Hostel, Madhapur, Hyderabad; (2) “Shree Santosh Family Dhaba” situated at Madhura Plaza, 1st Floor, Madhapur, near State Bank of India, Madhapur, West Hyderabad; (3) “Santosh Veg Affair Dhaba” situated at Patrikanagar, Hitech City; (4) “Sri Santosh Family Dhaba” situated at Mindspace, beside Haldiram Sweets, Medicover Hospital and (5) “Santosh Family Dhaba” situated at Madhapur, beside AIG Hospital; due to which irreparable loss of goodwill and financial loss is caused to the respondent No. 2.

3. On receipt of the said complaint, the Police registered case vide Cr. No. 139 of 2024 against the petitioner, arraying him as accused No. 2 for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 103 and 104 of TRA Act. Aggrieved thereby, this criminal petition is filed.

4. Heard Sri G.L. Sonu, learned counsel representing Sri N. Vishal, learned counsel for petitioner/accused No. 2, Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No. 1-State and Sri Abhishek Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is falsely implicated in this case and he is a law abiding respectable citizen in the society and enjoys decent social status and stellar reputation in the business community. He contended that in the month of June, 2016 the petitioner has applied for registration with the Government of Telangana Commercial Taxes Department to obtain Value Added Tax Registration Certificate for running business in the name and style of “Shree Santosh Family Dhaba” and the authority concerned has issued the Certificate in this regard vide Certificate dated 14.06.2016. Further, the petitioner has registered the business entity “Shree Santosh Family Dhaba” in the year 2018 and obtained Certificate bearing No. SEA/RAN/ALO/BN/55709/2017 from the Labour Department of Government of Telangana under the Telangana Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act, 1988’) and also obtained license bearing No. SEA/RAN/ACL/RR/0789099 issued by the Officer, Central Zone, GHMC, Hyderabad. He asserted that the petitioner applied for trademark application and has accordingly invited the objections from the public at large regarding using the name of “Shree Santosh Family Dhaba” and the respondent No. 2 has filed objections before the Trademark Authority in Delhi and the same is pending adjudication before the competent authority in Delhi.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner incessantly contended that the offences as alleged against the petitioner are baseless on the ground that nowhere in the complaint averments, there is any mention regarding fraudulent inducement and to deceive is to induce a man to believe that a thins is true which is false and an activity which a person practicing the deceit kno