Delhi District Court
Charanjeet Singh vs The State on 4 April, 2024
Charanjeet Singh Vs. The State (Govt. Of JCT) of Delhi
IN THE COURT OF SH. ALOK SHUKLA, ADDITIONAL
SESSION JUDGE-02, SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS), EAST
DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI
CNR NO. DLET01-010827-2022
Criminal Revision No. 202/2022
In the matter of:-
Charanjeet Singh
S/o. Sh. S. Mani Singh,
R/o. G-41, Preet Vihar,
Delhi-110092. ......Revisionist
VERSUS
1. The State (Govt. Of N.C.T.) of Delhi
2. Station House Officer
Police Station Geeta Colony,
Delhi. ......Respondents
Date of Institution : 07.10.2022
Date of reserve for Judgment : 03.04.2024
Date of decision : 04.04.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The present revision petition has been preferred by the Revisionist against the order dated 27.06.2022 passed in CR Case No. 3499 of 2021 by Ld. MM, whereby the protest petition filed by the Revisionist was dismissed and the cancellation report was accepted.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged a complaint with PS Geeta Colony on 12.12.2019 and FIR 0058 was registered on the basis of the complaint on 18.02.2020. The Revisionist filed the complaint against Digital Performance Cr. Rev. no.. 202/2022 Page no. 1 of 21 Charanjeet Singh Vs. The State (Govt. Of JCT) of Delhi Media Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as " Company"), Manu Jolly (director), Vaibhav Vats (director), Rigzen Chodsen (director), Aditya (Franchisee sales) and Kunal (CEO). The case of the Revisionist is that he wanted to set up a new business for his son. He met two agents namely Vipul and Yogesh, who told him that Digiperform, a company of Kunal Chuadhary, provides training in advanced stage digital marketing and youth of today are lining up for a career in this field. Revisionist got a call from one Aditya, who told him that the company belongs to Kunal Chaudhary and he works at the company. The Revisionist googled and found that Kunal Chaudhary is a big name in the said field. Aditya came to the office of the Revisionist at 6/214, Geeta Colony, in the first week of June 2018. He was wearing the ID of Digiperform Company and he explained to the complainant about the company through his laptop. He told the complainant that the complainant can earn upto 350 percent on his investment in 3 years. He further told the complainant that the company Digital Media Private Limited (Digiperform) is a registered company and the name and logo/trademark Digiperform is also registered with the government. At the request of the Revisionist he took the Revisionist for a meeting with Kunal Chaudhary. The name Kunal Chaudhary MD, was mentioned outside the office and there were other people sitting inside the office requesting Kunal Chaudhary for franchisee of the company. The people sitting there explained to the Revisionist that some of the amount has to be paid in cash and the remaining is to be paid through the bank. In the first week of July 2018, the person namely Aditya came to the office of the Revisionist at 6/214, Geeta colony Delhi Cr. Rev. no.. 202/2022 Page no. 2 of 21 Charanjeet Singh Vs. The State (Govt. Of JCT) of Delhi and the Revisionist paid Rs. 2 lakhs in cash to him. On asking for the receipt of the payment the said person told the Revisionist that when the payment will be received through the bank, a receipt will be given to the Revisionist. On 11 July 2018, the Revisionist along with friend Yogesh went to the office of the company and paid Rs. 2 lakhs in cash. The Revisionist further, between July 2018 to December 2018 paid a total of Rs. 20 lakhs by way of cash in installments and Rs.13.25 lakhs through bank. Upon the instructions of the accused to open a centre at Preet Vihar, the Revisionist opened a centre of Digiperform at house number 18, top floor, Shankar Vihar, Delhi-92 as asked by the company. The accused persons had promised that they will arrange for the staff and the students and despite repeated requests of the Revisionist they failed to arrange sufficient students and it became difficult for the Revisionist to even pay the salaries of the staff. The Revisionist got suspicious and on enquiry he came to know that the person he had met with was not Kunal Chaudhary and the people who were present at the office of Kunal Chaudhary were also their own people. Revisionist further came to know that the brand name Digiperform is also not registered in the name of the company. The trademark is registered in the name of Kunal Chaudhary and the company has no relation with him and the company is using the registered brand which is in the name of Kunal Chaudhary. The accused persons also made the Revisionist to sign an agreement and the Revisionist was not given the copy of the same. The alleged persons have conspired to defraud the Revisionist of Rs.34.16 lakhs and made him to invest Rs.50 lakhs for establishing the Cr. Rev. no.. 202/2022 Page no. 3 of 21 Charanjeet Singh Vs. The State (Govt. Of JCT) of Delhi Centre. When the Revisionist asked for the refund of his money, the alleged persons removed the staff sent by them to his centre and also stopped the Google ad. The alleged persons also threatened the Revisionist that they will get the Revisionist and his family members killed.
3. After investigation the IO filed the cancellation report. As per cancellation report, the company Digital Performance Media Private Ltd. is registered with the Registrar of the Companies. The Revisionist has paid Rs.2 lakhs to the company through HDFC bank on 24 August 2018, Rs.6 lakhs through SBI bank on 4 September 2018, Rs 4 lakhs through HDFC bank on 9 January 2019 and Rs.1,25,000 through HDFC bank on 15 July 2019. A license agreement was executed on 15 February 2019 between digital performance media Private Limited and Digitraex India through its proprietor Ms. Amita Singh (the wife of the Revisionist, however, the agreement was signed by the Revisionist on her behalf) for digital marketing training. As per License agreement, the licensee/wife of the Revisionist was granted 150 licences for enrolling students for the Digiperform course (dCDMC). As per the reply received from the Office of Registrar, Trademark it was found that the alleged company is duly registered vide its application number 2616135, with the Office of Registrar of Trademark under the Trademark Act. The Revisionist paid a sum of Rs 13.25 Lakhs to the company and regarding the payment of Rs 20 lakhs in cash, the Revisionist could not produce any proof and the factum of the payment could not be substantiated during the investigation. The Revisionist alleged that due to the franchisee he had suffered losses, Cr. Rev. no.. 202/2022 Page no. 4 of 21 Charanjeet Singh Vs. The State (Govt. Of JCT) of Delhi however, the Revisionist has trained 170 students with the courses offered to them with a fees amounting between Rs 42,000-65000 per student and the complainant in his statement dated 04.01.2021, has admitted that he has earned Rs 71.42 lakhs from this franchisee. The Revisionist has alleged that he has invested Rs 50 lakhs in setting up the franchisee, however, during investigation it was found that the investment was made by the Revisionist was for his own set up and the alleged company is not beneficiary of the said amount. The amount has been invested for renting accommodation, electricity bill etc. It has not been mentioned in the license agreement that the alleged company will invest or bear the setup expenses. It was found that Digital Performance Media Private Limited is the registered company in the name of Manu Jolly and Vaibhav Vats since 2013. Kunal Chaudhary is the owner of Kixx Media Private Limited. There were several meetings between the complainant and Manu Jolly before getting franchisee. Kunal Chaudhary was also interrogated on 13/10/2020 and he has stated that he does not know the complainant and has never met him. Kunal Virmani was also interrogated and he stated that he has joined the Digiperform in December 2018 at A-20 Kailash Colony, as a Head of Operations (COU). He met the complainant for the first time at his centre in Preet Vihar, in December 2018 and he has not met the complainant at the Kailash Colony office. He further stated that he has not met Kunal Choudhury ever and got to know about him after joining digiperform. The conditions for termination of the license are mentioned in clause 15 of the license agreement. The accused company had terminated the franchisee of the Cr. Rev. no.. 202/2022 Page no. 5 of 21 Charanjeet Singh Vs. The State (Govt. Of JCT) of Delhi Revisionist as per the termination notice dated 07/04/2020 and alleging material breach in the terms of license agreement on the following grounds:
A. The licensee failed to adhere to clause 3.6 whereby he was obligated to recruit at least two digiperform certified trainers.
B. The licensee appointed trainers which were not trained by digiperform and many widely altered the content and delivered it to the students who were enrolled in the name of Digiperform's brand.
C. The licensee pirated the content of the company and provided it to third parties to use the same. The licensee provided the content even to the students which were not even registered with the company. In violation of clause 3.7 the licensee offered the courses at prices decided by him.
D. The licensee started badmouthing about the new course of the company and kept selling the old course by undercutting the prices.
E. The licensee deliberately started misrepresenting the public that Charan Singh is the managing director of the company.
4. During the course of investigation, the complainant lodged another complaint dated 05/06/2020, stating that the alleged company Digiperform procured the stamp papers by illegal means and got their company registered on the strength of those papers. The complainant further filed another complaint alleging that the stamp papers used for obtaining trademark were bought Cr. Rev. no.. 202/2022 Page no. 6 of 21 Charanjeet Singh Vs. The State (Govt. Of JCT) of Delhi in the names of other persons rather than in the name of the company or its representatives. During investigation it was revealed that the director of the company Vaibhav Vats had appointed a legal firm "[email protected]" to obtain the trademark for the company. As per the reply received from the said firm, the stamp papers were purchased in the names of the lawyers of the firm. Further, as per the details provided by the Assistant Treasurer office, Chennai in respect of the stamp papers, the stamp papers match with the original stamp papers produced by the legal firm. The email conversations between Vaibhav Vats and [email protected], were also verified and found to be correct and genuine. The trademark 'Digiperform' has been registered by the company in classes 35 and 41 and the company is the registered proprietor of the said trademark. The company filed an application No. 2616135 for the trademark 'Digiperform' under Class 35 on 22/10/2013, with a user claim of 01/09/2013. The said trademark was registered vide certificate No. 2335614 dated 11/12/2019. The said trademark is valid and subsisting. The company filed an application No. 4257014 for the trademark 'Digiperform' class 41 on 05/08/2019, with a user claim of 01/09/2013. The said trademark was registered vide certificate No. 2502223 dated 13/09/2020. The said trademark is valid and subsisting. All the accused persons have been interrogated separately. During interrogation Aditya Joshi stated that he had joined the company in February 2018, as general manager franchise sales at address A-20, Kailash Colony, Metro Station. He never met the complainant at his office and had met him at the company office Cr. Rev. no.. 202/2022 Page no. 7 of 21 Charanjeet Singh Vs. The State (Govt. Of JCT) of Delhi in Kailash Colony since he was handling franchise sales. He further stated that the dispute between the company and the complainant is because the complainant was fabricating the numbers of admissions and not doing LMS Entrico like every franchisee does, therefore, the company did not renew his franchise agreement. He also stated that he never made the complainant to meet with Kunal Chowdhary, however, the complainant met Manu Jolly, at Kailash Colony office and he never went to the complainant's Geeta colony address. The person namely Kunal Choudhury was a competitor of the company and was running a company namely "Kixx Media Private Limited" and his brand was DSIM-Delhi School of Internet Marketing. He is not related with alleged company. Kunal Chaudhary was also interrogated and he has stated that he only knew Vaibhav Vats, as he was a student in his training institute, 'Delhi School of Internet marketing' (DSIM) in the year 2011. He further stated that he joined as a trainer and took classes and worked with DSIM till February 2014. He also stated that he has nothing to do with the alleged company and he has also applied for the trademark 'Digiperform' in class 41 and the same was awarded to him in on 16.04.2018. He stated that he has never met the complainant.
5. The accused Manu Jolly was also interrogated and he stated that he is the director of the alleged company along with Vaibhav Vats and Rigzon Chisdon. He further stated that the complainant approached the company online by filing enquiry form on their website www.digiperform.com and thereafter visited their office in Kailash Colony. After various meetings and Cr. Rev. no.. 202/2022 Page no. 8 of 21 Charanjeet Singh Vs. The State (Govt. Of JCT) of Delhi discussions, he became a licensee of the company for his Nirman Vihar Office. The Revisioist had also alleged that the company had changed the documents filed earlier by it in the Office of the Registrar Trademark, however, as per the reply received from the said Office it has been stated that it is not possible to change the documents after filing of the application.
6. The IO concluded that on the basis of the investigation conducted, statements recorded and documents collected that no offence under section 420/406/34 IPC is made out in the present case and the dispute between the complainant and the accused is civil in nature arising out of the license agreement. The dispute arose between the parties over non-compliance of the terms of license agreement prior to the filing of the complaint by the complainant. The complainant has failed to substantiate his allegations of handing over Rs 20 lakhs in cash to the accused persons and resources from which the same were arranged by him despite the notice of the I/O. The complainant admitted around 170 students at the Centre after entering into the license agreement and also took fees from them and no student has alleged that they took admission at the centre of the complainant on any deception of trademark. The person Kunal Chaudhary has nothing to do with the alleged company and he is running his own company by the name of "Kixx Media Private Limited" and was using the trademark Delhi School of Internet Marketing, 'DSIM'. The license agreement entered between the parties was available with the complainant and the complainant has filed no document to show that the accused persons misrepresented the alleged company i.e. Digital Performance Media Private Limited Cr. Rev. no.. 202/2022 Page no. 9 of 21 Charanjeet Singh Vs. The State (Govt. Of JCT) of Delhi to be a company of Kunal Chaudhary. The trademark 'Digiperform' was applied by the accused company on 22/10/2013, as per the record of trademark registry and the trademark certificate was granted to them on 11/12/2019, under class 35. The application for registration of the same trademark was also filed by the accused company before the registrar of trademarks on 05/08/2019, under class 41 i.e. before filing of any complaint and merely because a trademark under specific category was not registered would not amount to any offence.
7. The complainant filed the protest petition raising the following material objections to the cancellation report:-
a. The IO has not collected the requisite material/evidence from the office of trademark Delhi.
b. The IO has not procured two of the original stamp papers bearing No. AP 797224 and BA925384, which have been allegedly used by the accused persons for applying and obtaining the trademark registration from the office of the trademark.
c. Despite availability of incriminating evidence, IO has not invoked the sections 467/468/471 IPC against the accused persons. As per the report of District Registrar (Central) Chennai, on 30/09/2013 a stamp paper at serial no. 2101, was issued to one Mr. Prabhu, however, stamp paper under question i.e. AP797224 reveals that it was sold at serial no. 2101 on 15/09/2013. The stamp paper AP 797224 is fake/forged as it was Sunday on 15/09/2013. The IO has not taken any steps for forensic examination of any of the seized stamp papers.
Cr. Rev. no.. 202/2022 Page no. 10 of 21 Charanjeet Singh Vs. The State (Govt. Of JCT) of Delhi d. The police has filed the cancellation report without interrogating or investigating the law firm which processed the alleged trademark for the accused persons by virtue of six stamp papers and all the stamp papers are in the name of third party and were not purchased in the name of the accused persons. e. The police has filed the cancellation report without interrogating the responsible trademark officials to collect the evidence as to how the trademark of same name "Digiperform" has been issued to 3 different entities without raising any objection. f. The police has not filed one of the statements of the complainant wherein he has disclosed that as per instructions of Manu Jolly Rs 65,000 was charged from each student of which Rs. 42,000 was retained by the complainant's firm and the difference of Rs. 23,000 was to be transferred to Digiperform in cash through official namely Kunal. Although 42 students did not turn up to pay their fees after registration, a lump sum amount of Rs. 20 lakhs was given to the accused persons. However, as per the license agreement Rs. 10,000 per student was agreed to be paid and it was initially paid by the complainant as Rs. 15 lakhs for 150 students. Therefore the payment of Rs. 23,000 per student was against the license agreement. g. The police has not interrogated the persons named in the FIR i.e. Rigzen Chosden, Aditya and Kunal. Manu Jolly has allured the complainant to pay Rs. 5 lakhs and Cr. Rev. no.. 202/2022 Page no. 11 of 21 Charanjeet Singh Vs. The State (Govt. Of JCT) of Delhi under the instructions the complainant has paid Rs. 5 lakhs to Aditya in two instalments as token money. Thereafter on another occasion during finalisation of education Centre, Manu Jolly raised another demand of Rs 5 lakhs, which was paid to him by the complainant. h. The police has not filed the reply of notary public Ms. Sushma Gupta in response to notice under 91 Cr.P.C., who specifically stated that the stamp papers used by the accused persons do not bear her seal and signature and the same are forged.
i. The police has not investigated as to why stamp papers were bought from Chennai in case of registration for trademark in Delhi office.
j. The IO has not taken into consideration the correspondences of the complainant to entertain the witnesses for recording of their statements. The IO did not entertain the request of the witness namely Yogesh Kumar and has not recorded his statement.
8. Ld. MM vide impugned judgment dated 27.06.2022 dismissed the protest petition filed by the Revisionist and accepted the cancellation report. Being aggrieved by the same the present revision petition has been filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Revisionist that Ld. MM failed to appreciate that RTI Replies from the Registration Department, Chennai shows that stamp papers were purchased in the name of different persons and not in the name of lawyers engaged by the accused company. IO deliberately and with malafide intention did not place the said RTI Replies on record. The entire cancellation Cr. Rev. no.. 202/2022 Page no. 12 of 21 Charanjeet Singh Vs. The State (Govt. Of JCT) of Delhi report is silent on the point that the IO had sent a notice under section 91 Cr.P.C. to one Ms. Sushma Gupta and Ms. Sushma Gupta had duly replied stating that the stamp papers do not bear her signature and seal. It has been argued that the Ld. MM has further failed to appreciate that if the stamp papers were purchased from Chennai, how it was signed by Vaibhav Vats and notarised by Notary Public from Delhi without visiting Chennai or without sending those stamp papers to Delhi. It has been argued that the accused persons were not holding the trademark to deal with the said business when the accused persons induced the revisionist to get their franchisee for education and training purposes, rather Kunal Chaudhary, who is an accomplice of the accused persons had trademark Digiperform registered in his name at the relevant time. It is submitted that Kunal Chaudhary who was the competitor of the accused company and was holding trademark in the name of Digiperform in class 41 (for purposes of education and training), but he did not make any complaint against the accused company and its directors, who were alluring/inducing the persons in open market with the same name and trademark of Kunal Chaudhary which shows that Kunal Chaudhary and accused persons were in active conspiracy and deceived the revisionist with fraudulent intention. It has been further argued that the accused persons were not having trademark under class 41, entered into an agreement with the revisionist to receive money for license to deliver education and training and when this fraud was discovered, accused company applied and procured the trademark in the requisite class to save their skin. Accused company terminated the licence only after the Cr. Rev. no.. 202/2022 Page no. 13 of 21 Charanjeet Singh Vs. The State (Govt. Of JCT) of Delhi revisionist filed the complaint against them with mala fight intention to vanish the criminality of their act. IO concealed the illegal design of the alleged law firm engaged by the accused persons, who could only produce the originals of four stamp papers out of 6 stamp papers in question. Police failed to procure the license agreements details from the accused persons, they entered into with some other persons/entities which makes it clear that the investigating agency was acting in lakhs and reluctant manner. Thus, it has been argued on behalf of the Revisionist that order dated 27.06.2022 may be set aside.
9. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
10. The Revisionist has argued that the accused company does not have the trademark 'Digiperfrom' registered under class 41. It is settled law that the registration of trademark is not mandatory and even the proprietorship of registration in respect of a trademark does not ipso facto entitle to the proprietor the right to obtain relief against infringement of the mark. Further the proprietor of the said mark, Mr. Kunal Chaudhary has not been using the trademark 'Digiperform', nor he has filed any action for infringement against the accused company. The said trademark is being used for its business and trade by the Accused Company. Law recognizes the right of prior user over the registered owner. In S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai (2016) 2 SCC 683 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "the scheme of the Act is such where rights of prior user are recognized superior than that of the registration and even the registered proprietor cannot disturb/interfere with the rights of Cr. Rev. no.. 202/2022 Page no. 14 of 21 Charanjeet Singh Vs. The State (Govt. Of JCT) of Delhi the prior user." Thus the mere fact that the accused company is not the registered owner of the trademark 'digiperform' under class 41 does not attract any criminality unless there is material to show that revisionist was induced by misrepresentation to that effect. Perusal of the record reveals that the revisionist even after preferring the complaint chose not to terminate the license agreement dated 15.02.2019 and it is the accused company, which terminated the license agreement vide notice dated 07.04.2020 after registration of the FIR. The Revisionist has further stated that he entered into the license agreement on 15.02.2019, however, the registration date of trademark in clause 41, by the accused firm is of 13.09.2020 on their application dated 05.08.2019. As rightly observed by the Ld. MM, perusal of the record shows that the company was infact using the trademark "Digiperform" in respect to their company, although the application might have been made for registration under Clause 41 only on 05.08.2019. Moreover, the company also had the trademark registered under clause 35 vide their application made on 22.10.2013. The Revisionist cannot claim to have been misled or misrepresented by the use of name "Digiperform" by the accused company, as already discussed registration of trademark is not mandatory nor the present case has been filed for infringement of trademark. The Revisionist cannot claim to have been misled as he is a signatory to the license agreement which clearly mentions the details of the accused company and the trademark (Digiperform) used by it. Further even after making the complaint, the revisionist himself continued to use Cr. Rev. no.. 202/2022 Page no. 15 of 21 Charanjeet Singh Vs. The State (Govt. Of JCT) of Delhi the trademark as the license agreement was terminated by the accused company vide notice dated 07.04.2020.
11. Initially the revisionist has claimed that he was induced by the accused persons by representing that one Kunal Chaudhary is the owner of the accused company. As per the claim of the Revisionist, he googled about Kunal Chaudhary and after being satisfied that he is a big name in the field, he chose to enter into license agreement dated 15.02.2019. The perusal of the license agreement does not show that any such claim is made on behalf of the accused company nor Kunal Chaudhary is the signatory to the said agreement. We are living in an age of information technology and as per the revisionist himself he googled about Kunal Chaudhary prior to execution of license agreement, thus it does not seem probable at all that the revisionist on surfing on net prior to meeting the alleged imposter was not aware that Kunal Chaudhary is not associated with the accused company and that the alleged imposter was not Kunal Chaudhary. Nothing has been brought on record by the Revisionist to show that any such claim is made by the accused company or its directors on internet. In the present revision petition, the revisionist has alleged that Kunal Chaudhary is also an accomplice of the accused persons as he has allowed the accused persons to misuse the trademark "Digiperform". Statement of Kunal Chaudhary was recorded by IO, who stated that he has been running business in the name of Kixx Media Pt. Ltd. and had been using the brand name/trademark DSIM "Delhi School of Internet marketing." Cancellation report shows that no document has been filed by the revisionist to show that the accused persons Cr. Rev. no.. 202/2022 Page no. 16 of 21 Charanjeet Singh Vs. The State (Govt. Of JCT) of Delhi misrepresented Digital Performance Media Pt. Ltd. to be company of Mr. Kunal Chaudhary. Further Mr. Kunal Chaudhary has not been using the trademark/brand name Digiperform, thus the question of Revisionist being induced or misled that the Digiperform carries the goodwill of Kunal Chaudhary or Kunal Chaudhary is associated with the Digiperform is not made out from the facts and circumstances of the case.
12. Revisionist initially vide his complaint dated 12.12.2019 has alleged that the accused persons have defrauded and deceived him to invest in their alleged company by misrepresenting that the company belongs to Kunal Choudhury and the trademark/brand was registered in the name of the company, however, he later came to know that the person he met with in respect of the accused company was not Kunal Chaudhary and the trademark 'Digiperform' is also not registered in the name of the accused company. Later on another complaint was filed on behalf of Revisionist on 05.06.2020 alleging that the accused persons have illegally got their registration and have forged the stamp papers while applying for the registration. As rightly observed by the Ld. MM, the allegations regarding the forgery of stamp papers in application for registration of trademark raised by the complainant on 05.06.2020, do not relate to the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust made by him in his original complaint dated 12.12.2019. The Revisionist in the present revision petition is also challenging the authenticity/propriety of the process of registration of the trademark granted by the Office of Registrar of Trademarks upon the application of the accused company. Ld. MM has rightly Cr. Rev. no.. 202/2022 Page no. 17 of 21 Charanjeet Singh Vs. The State (Govt. Of JCT) of Delhi observed that the complainant has not mentioned as to how his subsequent allegations relate to his original complaint and as how he can be misrepresented by the use of stamp papers/trademark registration process, when the said facts were not within his knowledge at the time of filing initial complaint. Ld. MM has rightly opined that the complainant cannot be misled by facts/information, which was not within his knowledge or brought to his knowledge at the time of the commission of the alleged offence. Trademark Act provides the framework to challenge the registration of the trademark and the Ld. MM has already opined that the complainant is at liberty to pursue his remedies under law before the appropriate forum.
13. Further IO has also investigated the allegations in respect of the forged Stamp papers and has found nothing incriminating. The perusal of record shows that the accused company had hired a legal firm namely [email protected], for obtaining the trademark. The Revisionist has attempted to brought the said legal firm within the ambit of his allegations, without there being any nexus between the firm and the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust levelled in the original complaint. The Ld. MM has rightly observed hiring of a legal firm for registration process, cannot by any stretch of imagination, be called illegal and even if, there is some impropriety in the process adopted and documents furnished by the said firm for the registration process, it is not within the purview of proceedings in respect of the present FIR and moreover, the accused company cannot be held liable for any of such defects in the registration process. It has been argued on behalf of the Revisionist that the Cr. Rev. no.. 202/2022 Page no. 18 of 21 Charanjeet Singh Vs. The State (Govt. Of JCT) of Delhi stamp papers used by the accused company for registration of trademark are forged and fabricated Investigation conducted by the IO revealed that the director of the accused company, Mr. Vaibhav Vats had appointed a legal firm "[email protected]" to obtain the trademark for the company and as per the reply received from the said firm, the stamp papers were purchased in the names of the lawyers of the firm. Further, as per the details provided by the Assistant Treasurer office, Chennai in respect of the stamp papers, the stamp papers match with the original stamp papers produced by the legal firm. The email conversations between Vaibhav Vats and [email protected], were also verified and found to be correct and genuine by the IO. Further the allegations regarding the stamp paper used by the accused company for registration of the trademark under class 41 has no relation with the initial complaint filed by the Revisionist for cheating and criminal breach of trust. Ingredients required to constitute an offence of cheating are that there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him and the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property or the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit if he were not so deceived. There is no material on record, which shows that any person including the complainant or the students who enrolled with the courses of the accused company have been cheated due to misrepresentation on the part of the accused persons. Similarly there is no material on record, which suggest that the accused persons have committed criminal breach of trust Cr. Rev. no.. 202/2022 Page no. 19 of 21 Charanjeet Singh Vs. The State (Govt. Of JCT) of Delhi as the Revisionist has failed to show any entrustment of property to the accused persons, which has been dishonestly misused by the accused persons.
14. The present revision petition is completely silent with regard to the allegations levelled in the initial complaint dated 12.12.2019 and entire focus has now shifted to the subsequent registration of the trademark by the accused company under class
41. However in the written submission filed on behalf of the revisionist, the revisionist has stated that he lost about 1.22 crores in the cheating. He submits that he incurred total expenses about 2 crores and he just earned 71,40,000/- by the way of fees obtained from total admission of 170 students. Cancellation report shows that majority of the expenditure incurred by the Revisionist relates to the investment made by him for his own set up and the accused persons are not the beneficiary of the same. The amount was invested by him toward renting accommodation, electricity bill etc. It is not the case of the Revisionist that this entire amount of Rs. 2 Crore has been paid to the accused persons or that they are the beneficiary of the said amount. License Agreement dated 15.02.2019 shows that Accused company granted license to Digitrex India, a proprietorship concern of the wife of Revisionist for a period of three years to use its content to impart training of Digiperform courses. As per the revisionist's own case, 170 students enrolled with the Digiperform courses within the first year and the total fee of Rs. 71.42 lakhs were received. License Agreement does not stipulate that the expenses shall be borne by the accused company or that the Revisionist will get some guaranteed returns. Thus, the mere Cr. Rev. no.. 202/2022 Page no. 20 of 21 Charanjeet Singh Vs. The State (Govt. Of JCT) of Delhi fact that the Revisionist failed to earn profit in the first year of the agreement on the investment made by him will not render the accused persons liable for the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust.
15. To conclude, this court finds no prima facie case for charging the accused for the alleged offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust. This court finds no illegality, procedural irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order passed by Learned Trial Court. No interference in the impugned order is therefore, called for. In the result, revision petition is dismissed.
16. TCR be sent back along with a copy of this order.
17. Revision file be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by ALOK SHUKLA Announced in the open court ALOK Date:
on this 4 th Day of April, 2024.SHUKLA 2024.04.04 15:17:39 +0530 (ALOK SHUKLA) ASJ-2/Special Judge (NDPS) East District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi/04.04.2024 Cr. Rev. no.. 202/2022 Page no. 21 of 21