Back
K. SUJANA
Shree Santosh Family Dhaba – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
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; (
The court ruled that prima facie evidence exists to support allegations of trademark infringement and cheating, necessitating further investigation and trial.
The legality of trademark use in business disputes can be enforced through civil agreements, impacting criminal proceedings.
The element of mens rea should not be examined at the stage of Section 482 Cr.P.C jurisdiction.
The court established that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not permit the examination of mens rea at the stage of quashing charges, reserving such determinations for trial.
The judgment emphasized the importance of a speaking order in a complaint case and illustrated the conditions for interference in criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
The court quashed proceedings under Section 420 IPC, finding no prima facie case of cheating due to lack of essential ingredients despite accepting allegations at face value.
The court affirmed that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed solely on the basis that the allegations may also constitute a civil wrong, emphasizing the need for trial to determine the merits.
Successive acts of copyright infringement provide fresh cause of action; courts exercise quashing powers sparingly, primarily focusing on whether the allegations constitute a cognizable offense.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
