Allahabad High Court
Surendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 January, 2023
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 64 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37250 of 2022 Applicant :- Surendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Head Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceeding along with charge sheet dated 22.4.2021 and cognizance order dated 22.12.2021 in Case No. 6960 of 2021 (State Vs. Deepak Agarwal and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 55 of 2021, under Section 103/104 Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 63/65 The Copyright Act, 1957, Police Station Mandi Dhanaura, District Amroha, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha.
3. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is, no police case may have been registered; cognizance may have been taken only against complaint. Further submission has been made, the applicant had not engaged in any manufacturing; he had bought ready-made garments including jeans from one Shri Sai Enterprises; the ingredients of offence alleged are not made out. Further submissions have also been advanced as to the report of the FSL being pending and the statement of other persons having recorded during investigation.
4. On the other hand, learned AGA would submit, allegation being of offence under Section 103/104 Trade Marks Act, 1999, the offence is cognizable under Section 115(3) of that Act. As to the other submissions, he would submit, the same are factual in nature as would require evidence to be led, therefore, no interference is warranted.
5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, inasmuch as the allegation is of offence under Section 103/104 Trade Marks Act, 1999, the same were clearly cognizable offences. Therefore, they would fall in exception to a general rule contained in Section 115(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The other submission being advanced are factual in nature as may require evidence to be led before any interference may be made with the criminal prosecution.
6. Accordingly, the application fails and is dismissed. It is however left open to the applicant to avail his statutory remedy including bail and discharge at the appropriate stage. Those remedies if sought, the same shall be tested on their own merits without being prejudice by any observation made in this order.
Order Date :- 17.1.2023 SA