K.M.Natarajan, j. - (1.) The accused in C.C. No. 2027 of 1984 on the file of the Third Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras has preferred this petition under section 482 Cr. P.C., to quash the proceedings. It is seen from the allegation in the complaint that the respondent herein who is the sole proprietor of M/s Spade Clover Beedi Factory used to entrust the work of manufacture of beedi to the petitioner and other contractors on contract basis, supplying his own label and tobacco and as per the oral agreement, the petitioner herein should manufacture and send quality beedi duly rolled up and fixed with respondents labels to Madras through lorry. The quality of the beedies supplied by the petitioner had been deteriorating for about four or five months and he had been supplying only substandard beedies. In respect of that the respondent had been receiving complaints from the parties. Further, it is alleged that the petitioner herein has no right to use the label belonging to the respondent and sell the beedies in open market. But in contravention of the same, he has been doing it and hence he has contravened the Trade Marks right and infringed the same, which is an illegal and unlawful act. It is also further alleged that the petitioner has counterfeited the respondents property mark used by him in the manufacture and sale of beedies under the Trade Mark Spade Clover Beedies and has been supplying and selling them to the wholesale and retail dealers of the respondent at Thambu Chetty Street, Madras I. Hence, the allegation against the petitioner is that he has committed an offence punishable under sections 420 and 463, I.P.C.
(2.) The averment in petition is that it was only the petitioner, even according to the allegation in the complaint, who was manufacturing the beedi. It is further alleged that there is no ingredient in the complaint to make out a case for the offence under sections 420 and 483, I.P.C., and it is only a case of civil nature.
(3.) After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel on either side and after going through the records, I find that in respect of the same matter, the respondent herein has filed a civil suit in C.S. No. 495 of 1984 on the file of this Court for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from manufacturing, using, printing and exhibiting and sale of beedies deceptively similar to that of the respondents Spade Clover Beedies and also for a direction to the petitioner herein to return the beedies supplied to him or their value and also to render true and proper accounts of profits made by him, to return the infringing labels and makes for destruction and for costs. He has also obtained interim injunction. On going through the complaint, I find that it is nothing but a civil liability as in respect of infringement of the Trade Mark Right, the respondent his rightly instituted a civil suit and obtained injunction. If the petitioner had acted contrary to the oral agreement and manufactured substandard quality of bee dies and sold them to others, it cannot be said that he has committed criminal offences punishable under sections 420 and 483 I.P.C. The proper remedy is only to sue him in a civil court for infringement of his Trade Mark rights and also for acting contrary to oral agreement in not returning the goods and selling to others. I do not find any material from the allegations that for the contravention committed by the respondent he would be liable for the offences under sections 420 and 483 I.P.C. I am of the view that the dispute only civil in nature and it has to be agitated before the Civil Court, which is the competent forum. The mere fact that the respondent manufactured substandard beedies and did not return the labels and manufactured beedies and that he sold the same to other wholesalers or retailers will not establish that the respondent has committed offence punishable under sections 420 and 483 I.P.C.;