Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) This application dated 20th January, 1998 has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By this application the petitioners pray .for quashing of G.R. Case No. 2227 of 1997 arising out of Jagacha Police Station Case No. 106 of 1997. The case is pending in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Howrah.
(2.) The opposite party No. 1 filed a petition of complaint under sections 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 78, 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The petitioners were impleaded as accused Nos. 3 and 4 in the said petition of complaint, while the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were their employees. It was alleged that the petitioners in violation of regulations of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act were selling duplicate paddy thrashing machines registered under trade mark 'Puspak' when the complainant was the authorised dealer of such Puspak paddy thrashing machine. It was alleged that such actions of the petitioners amounted to commission of an offence punishable under sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 as well as sections 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. A prayer was made in the petition of complaint for giving a direction on the Officer-in-Charge, Jagacha Police Station for treating it as an F.I.R. under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By an order dated 28th November, 1997 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was pleased to send the said petition of complaint to the Officer-in-Charge, Jagacha Police Station for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by treating the said petition of complaint as an F.I.R. Consequently the Jagacha Police Station Case No. 106 dated 7th December, 1997 was initiated under sections 420, 120B IPC and 78, 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.
(3.) On 9th December, 1997 the petitioners were produced before the learned Magistrate. On the same date a joint application was filed by the petitioners and the de. facto complainant (i.e., the opposite party No. 2 herein). It was stated in that joint application that the parties (i.e., the petitioners and the de facto complainant) had mutually settled all the disputes between them. Both the parties made a prayer before the learned Magistrate for passing necessary order so that the talk of compromise in progress between the parties could achieve fruitful result. While considering the petitioners' application for bail on the said 9th December, 1997 the learned Magistrate also took into consideration such joint application and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the fact that the de facto complainant was not inclined to proceed with the case, the learned Magistrate was pleased to grant bail to the petitioners.;