SURYA ROSHNI LTD Vs. SAMANA STEEL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Sunil Kumar Roy, Senior Research Executive M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. Padma Tower-I, 5-Rajindra Place, New Delhi and SHRI B.D. Aggarwal, Managing Director, M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. Padma Tower-I, 5-Rajindra Place, New Delhi, petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the quashment of the complaint Annexure P.1 and the summoning order dated 1.7.1995 alongwith the proceedings pending before the court of Sub-Devisional Judicial Magistrate, Samana, District Patiala under Sections 499, 500 and 107 IPC arising out of the publication dated 25.6.94 in Punjab Kesari on the basis of the interim orders dated 13.6.94 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Civil Suit No. 1315 of 1994 titled M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. Vs. Samana Steel Pvt. Ltd.. Before I meet with the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties during the course of arguments, let me summarised the facts. M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. filed a suit under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 against M/s Samana Steel Pvt. Ltd. and others. When this suit came up for hearing before the Delhi High Court, the following order was passed:- Notice for 25.07.94. Defendants, their servants agents, and representatives are restrained from selling, offering for sale or dealing with PVC Pipes and Tubes with the offending Mark 'Prakash Surya' or 'Surya Prakash' identical or deceptively similar to the trade marks of the plaintiff till further order. Mr. Manoj Verma, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the defendants. Sd/- V.B.Bansal, 13th June, 1994 Vacational Judge" On the basis of this order passed by the Hon'ble High Court the present petitioners i.e. the plaintiffs of that suit gave a warning notice which can be translated as follows:

(2.) WHERE the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompany the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the Code.

(3.) WHERE a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. WHERE allegations in the complaint did constitute a cognizable offence justifying registration of a case and investigation thereon and did not fall in any of the categories of extraordinary powers or inherent powers, quashing of FIR was not justified". If both the judgments are interpreted and if I am not wrong, there is no contradiction. The order passed by the Magistrate summoning any person as an accused no doubt is a conviction in nature and it is for the accused to convince that Magistrate that the said order can be recalled and that the complaint was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. But if on the face of the allegations of the complaint, this court comes to the conclusion that if nothing is added or substracted from the allegations of the complaint no offence is made out then as per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, 'The State of Haryana and ors. Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, the provisions under Section 482 Cr.PC can be certainly invoked. Now in this context I will have to prima facie see that without entering into the defence whether any offence has been made out under Section 499 or 500 IPC so as to justify the summoning order. Further I have also to see what was the motive behind for the respondent in order to initiate the complaint. I cannot lose sight of the fact that it was the petitioner who pursuaded the proceedings from the trial Court to the High Court and respondent No. 1 was one of the defendant in the suit filed in the Delhi High Court. So much so the Counsel for defendant No. 1 appeared before his Lordship at Delhi High Court and accepted the notice. Keeping in view that background, respondents No. 1 and 2 thought proper to file a criminal complaint against the petitioner at Samana so as to drag them from Delhi to Samana. To proceed further whether ingredients of Section 499 IPC are made out so as to punish an offender under Section 500 IPC, I would like to refer to the provisions of Section 499 IPC as such: