Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. On 26.02.2013, Anchor through its constituted attorney Sh. Natwarlal Parikh filed Complaint Case No. 12/01/13 under Section 200 CrPC. for initiation of criminal proceedings against officials of Colgate and G. P. Roy, Assistant Controller of Patent and Design, Kolkata alleging forgery of all three Design certificates committed under Section 166, 167, 463, 464, 465, 468, 469, 470 and 471 read with Section 34 and 120 B of IPC. The said complaint was filed before ACMM Patiala House Court, New Delhi. The essence of complaint case was that Statement of Novelty was added to the last sheet in CRL.M.C. Nos. 3866/2014, 3946/2014, 3459/2015 to 3464/2015 order to obtain purported advantage against Anchor. Anchor prayed as follows:

Such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also passed against the accused persons.

11. The Ld. MM thereafter, passed impugned summoning order on 30.06.2014, operative extract is reproduced as under:-

"In the present case, the allegations against accused no 1 to 8 and 10 to 13 are in respect of forging certified copy of design no 180362 by attaching statement of novelty to it and using the same before Hon'ble High Court in CS (OS) no. 304/2004 and in the Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court Perusal of the documents placed on record fortify the averments of CRL.M.C. Nos. 3866/2014, 3946/2014, 3459/2015 to 3464/2015 complainant with respect to alleged forgery of certified copy of design no. 180362 Since the alleged forgery has been committed prior to filing of the document before the Court, therefore, the bar of Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr.P.C would not be applicable in terms of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2005 SC 2119. The suit OS(OS) no. 304/2004 has been filed by accused no.7 and 8 through accused no.1 and 2 while accused no. 6 has filed his affidavit during the course of evidence. Accused no. 4 and 5 have filed their affidavits in SLPs filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accused no.3 is stated to have filed his affidavit before Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta and thus, accused no.3 has not committed any act within the jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, from the record prima facie offences under Section 465/469/471/34 IPC are made out against accused no. 1, 2 and 4 to 8. So far as accused no. 10 to 13 are concerned, there is nothing on record except oral averments of the complainant to connect them with the alleged offences. There is no evidence to show their involvement in the forgery of design no. 180362 and filing the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court or Hon'ble High Court. Thus, no case is made out against accused no. 10 to 13.

Learned Senior Counsels further submitted that while filing the case before the Delhi High Court, due to inadvertence, novelty certificate was not attached, though the same was attested and was a mistake of the Registry to overlook and not incorporated novelty certificate on the last page which the present petitioner has filed on page No.125 of the paper book. He further submitted that non-filing of the original document and administrative error at the controller's office for novelty statement being missing in the certified copy ipso facto does not constitute the offence of forgery or any kind of offence because the document in existence is not in dispute as the same is registered with the Controller of Patent & Design, Kolkata. If at all there is any forgery committed or if there is any other document so alleged Anchor could have filed the same before the concerned Court. The impugned order dated 30.06.2014 in is bad in law and same be set aside and quashed.

vi. For an order for the cost of the proceedings.
CRL.M.C. Nos. 3866/2014, 3946/2014, 3459/2015 to 3464/2015 vii. For such further orders to which the plaintiffs may be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the present case.
The complainant Anchor knowing well of filing the Civil Suit CS(OS) 304/2004 by Colgate against them on 16.02.2004, Anchor after a gap of more than 8 years comes with a plea of forgery committed by accused persons of Design Registration No. 180362 and files the complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. on 26.03.2013 before Ld. ACMM, Patiala House Court, New Delhi. Ld. ACMM took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 465, 469, 471 and 34 IPC and passed summoning order against Accused persons. Here, it is to be noted that Civil Suit filed by Colgate was on 16.02.2004 and written statement filed by Anchor is dated 07.05.2004. The commission of the offence of the Forgery as per Anchor could only be before 07.05.2004 when Anchor came to know about filing of the Civil Suit as well as they filed written statement. The punishment under Section 465 is 2 years, under Section 469 is 3 years and under Section 471 is 2 years.