Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, proprietor of an oil mill trading in gram flour under the brand 'MRS Ganapathi', filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him. Respondent No.2, a competitor, had lodged a complaint on 04.10.2013 alleging offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1967 and Sections 482, 483 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The police registered Crime No.297/2013 and conducted a search of the petitioner's premises, seizing bags of gram flour and other items. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed for offences under Sections 482, 483 and 420 IPC read with Sections 102, 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, while the Copyright Act charge was dropped. The petitioner challenged this before the trial court and in revision before the Sessions Court, both of which were dismissed, leading to the present petition. The petitioner contended that the complaint was deliberately filed under the Copyright Act to circumvent the procedural safeguards under the Trade Marks Act, particularly the proviso to Section 115(4) which requires that no police officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police can conduct search and seizure without obtaining the opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks and abiding by it. It was argued that the investigation and subsequent chargesheet were an abuse of process. Respondent No.2 countered that the complainant had acted in good faith to protect his registered trademark and that any non-compliance with Section 115(4) was a mere irregularity, not fatal to the proceedings. He relied on case law to assert that police are empowered to investigate cognizable offences under the Trade Marks Act. The court heard arguments and reserved the matter; the available text does not include the final decision of the court.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the registration of FIR and subsequent investigation and chargesheet are vitiated due to non-compliance with the proviso to Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and whether it amounts to abuse of process of law warranting quashing of proceedings.
Case Details
2024 LawText (KAR) (07) 55
Criminal Petition No. 1620 of 2017 (482)
Praveen Kumar G.R., R. Rangaswamy, Shivaraman Vaidyanathan
State by Arasikere Town Police and K.R. Nagendra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings for offences under IPC and Trade Marks Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the order dated 26.12.2016 in Criminal Revision Petition No.108/2016 and the order dated 10.05.2016 in C.C.No.338/2014, and to quash the chargesheet.
Filing Reason
Allegation that the complaint was purposefully registered under Section 63 of Copyright Act to bypass the mandatory procedure under proviso to Section 115(4) of Trade Marks Act, rendering the search, seizure and subsequent chargesheet illegal and an abuse of process.
Previous Decisions
The Senior Civil Judge, Arsikere took cognizance and issued process; the IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan dismissed the revision petition.
Issues
Whether the criminal proceedings are vitiated due to non-compliance with the proviso to Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and whether it amounts to abuse of process warranting quashing.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: The complaint was deliberately lodged under Copyright Act to avoid the requirement of obtaining opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks under proviso to Section 115(4) of the TM Act; the search and seizure were illegal; the subsequent filing of chargesheet under TM Act without following the procedure is an abuse of process.
Respondent No.2: There was no abuse; the complainant simply sought to protect his trademark; the police erroneously registered the FIR under Copyright Act; non-compliance with Section 115(4) proviso is a curable irregularity and does not vitiate the proceedings; police have power to investigate cognizable offences under TM Act, as held in Shivlal and Sanyo Electric.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner claims to be in the business of the sale of gram flour under the name and style of “MRS Ganapathi” brand.
In terms of proviso to Subsection (4) of Section 115 of the TM Act, no Police Officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police can issue instructions to conduct any search or seizure unless he obtains the opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks and he shall abide by such opinion.
Even if there is a violation of the proviso to Subsection (4) of Section 115 of the TM Act, it is not material; at the most, it could be said to be an irregularity which would not result in a miscarriage of justice.
Procedural History
Complaint filed on 04.10.2013 by Respondent No.2 alleging offences under Section 63 Copyright Act and Sections 482, 483, 420 IPC; FIR registered as Crime No.297/2013 by Arasikere Town Police; search and seizure conducted; chargesheet filed for offences under Sections 482, 483, 420 IPC read with Sections 102, 103, 104 Trade Marks Act in C.C.No.338/2014; Magistrate took cognizance; petitioner filed revision in Criminal Revision Petition No.108/2016 before III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, which was dismissed on 26.12.2016; thereafter this petition filed under Section 482 CrPC.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 482, 483, 420
- Trade Marks Act, 1999: 102, 103, 104, 115(4)
- Copyright Act, 1967: 63
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
