Allahabad High Court
Akash Verma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 September, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:174399 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6636 of 2025 Akash Verma .....Applicant(s) Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) :
Ashish Goyal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Balbeer Singh, G.A. Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Ashish Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiv Prakash Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Balbeer Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant application under section 528 BNSS has been preferred to quash the charge-sheet dated 11.03.2024, cognizance/summoning order dated 02.07.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 9392 of 2024 (State vs. Akash Verma) arising out of Case Crime No. 73 of 2023, under section 420 I.P.C., Sections 104, 107, 103(d) of Trade Mark Act, 1999 and section 66 of the Information Technology (Amendment), Act, P.S. Kotwali, District- Agra, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Agra as well as to stay the further proceedings of abovementioned case.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR bearing Case Crime No. 73 of 2023 against applicant on 23.11.2023 alleging that the applicant has used the trademark of the first informant's firm namely, A.P. Jewelers, the same is situated at Rawatpada, Agra, while the applicant has also run his firm in the name and style as 'A.P. Jewelers (Kheragarh Wale)' situated at Shahganj, Agra. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is further stated that the proceeding initiated against the applicant is illegal and against the material available on record; the material of investigation does not disclose commission of any alleged offences against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has challenged the charge sheet along with summoning order on the ground that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence without prior report/certificate issued by the Registrar as mentioned under Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and as such, the impugned charge-sheet dated 11.03.2024 submitted by concerned investigating officer and the cognizance/summoning order dated 02.07.2024 passed by learned concerned court are totally illegal, arbitrary and against the material available on record and as such, the above proceedings initiated against the applicant may be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer made through the instant petition and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for applicant. 5. After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties and by bare perusal of the ingredients of Section 115 of the Trade Mark Act, it is crystal clear that no court shall take cognizance only in respect of three sections, except preferring complaint under Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Act.
6. Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 reads herein under:-
"115. Cognizance of certain offences and the powers of police officer for search and seizure.?
(1). No court shall take cognizance of an offence under section 107 or section 108 or section 109 except on complaint in writing made by the Registrar or any officer authorised by him in writing:Provided that in relation to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 107, a court shall take cognizance of an offence on the basis of a certificate issued by the Registrar to the effect that a registered trade mark has been represented as registered in respect of any goods or services in respect of which it is not in fact registered.
(2). No court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try an offence under this Act.
(3). The offences under section 103 or section 104 or section 105 shall be cognizable.
(4). Any police officer not below the rank of deputy superintendent of police or equivalent, may, if he is satisfied that any of the offences referred to in sub-section (3) has been, is being, or is likely to be, committed, search and seize without warrant the goods, die, block, machine, plate, other instruments or things involved in committing the offence, wherever found, and all the articles so seized shall, as soon as practicable, be produced before a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be:Provided that the police officer, before making any search and seizure, shall obtain the opinion of the Registrar on facts involved in the offence relating to trade mark and shall abide by the opinion so obtained.
(5) Any person having an interest in any article seized under sub-section (4), may, within fifteen days of such seizure, make an application to the Judicial Magistrate of the first class or Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, for such article being restored to him and the Magistrate, after hearing the applicant and the prosecution, shall make such order on the application as he may deem fit."
7. In the instant matter, learned court concerned took cognizance of offence in respect of Sections 104, 107, 103(d) of Trade Mark Act, 1999 along with section 420 I.P.C. and section 66 of the Information Technology (Amendment), Act.
8. Arguments as raised by learned counsel for the applicant is convincing only to the extent for not taking cognizance of offence by learned concerned court under Section 107 of Trade Mark Act, 1999 and Section 66 of the Information Technology (Amendment), Act and as such, the order passed by learned trial court in shape of taking cognizance of offence is hereby modified to the extent of deletion of Section 107 of Trade Mark Act, 1999 and Section 66 of the Information Technology (Amendment), Act from the same.
9. Learned trial court is hereby directed to proceed with the trial in all the sections, wherein the cognizance of offence has been taken up, except Section 107 of Trade Mark Act, 1999 and Section 66 of the Information Technology (Amendment), Act.
10. In view of the above, the instant application stands partly allowed.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.) September 25, 2025 #Vik/-