S.C. JAIN Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the er dated 27.6.1981 passed by a Judicial Magistrate by which he has rejected the application filed on his behalf under Sec. 205 of the Code and has directed the petitioner to be present in court personally so that the p iculars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him. The relevant facts for disposal of this application in short, is that a complaint was filed in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar, alleging offence under Sec. 296 and 298 of the Indian Penal Code, hereinafter referred to as Penal Code, on 5.8.1980. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate after an enquiry under Sec. 202 of the Code took cognizance of offence under Ss. 296 and 298 of the Penal Code by his order dated 16.9.1980. By the same order, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was pleased to order for issuance of summons to the petitioner for appearance on 30.9.1980 and transferred the case to the court of Md. Mustaquim, Judicial Magistrate, Buxar, for trial. The petitioner appeared on 30.9.1980 through his counsel. According to the prosecution as disclosed in the complaint petition, the complainant is a Hindu and is a devotee of Sri Bajrangbali (Hanumanji) and worships Sri Hanumanji's image at his residence. It is alleged in the complaint petition that the petitioner is a Marketing Executive of vanaspati product of Rohtas Industries Ltd. (in brief, the company) which, throughout the country, is branded as Hanuman vanaspati with photograph of Hanuman pasted on every container and is purchased throughout the country by persons of diverse castes and community. According to the complaint, every body shows disrespect to the photograph of Hanuman, knowingly or unknowingly; somebody keeps the left over food in the container with the photograph pasted thereon; some body puts the photograph -affixed tins on fire which deeply wounded the feelings of the complainant. From a perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that the complainant claimed to have addressed a number of letters to the owner of the company stating therein that he had no objection to the inscribing of the name of Hanuman on tins but the photograph of Hanuman should not be affixed since it wounds the feelings of his devotees.

(2.) Further case of the complainant is that on 3.8.1980 while he was present at the Buxar Railway station, he came to know that the petitioner was waiting at platform No. 1 to go to Patna by the mail. He along with a few other persons approached the petitioner and wanted to persuade him to request his Managing Director that the photograph of Hanumanji should not be affixed on tins. The petitioner replied that the photograph of Hanuman is being affixed on the tins for more then two decades and he has not received any complaint. According to the complainant, the petitioner replied that the complainant should correspond with the Government instead of complaining to him. It is further alleged that the complainant also pointed him at a nearby hotel to see how the photograph affixed on the tins were being put on fire. It is alleged that the petitioner also tore away the photograph of Hanuman and threw the same into the dust -bin and observed that thousands of such photographs are burnt everyday and it is not possible for him to take care of the same everywhere. Such words of the petitioner deeply wounded the feelings of the complainant and, there fore, he filed the said complaint in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate as mentioned above, a copy of which has been made Annexure -1 to this application.

(3.) Learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Ss. 296 and 298 of the Penal Code. As I have already stated above, the petitioner is the General Manager in the company and is Incharge of sales Sec. at Patna. It is relevant here to mention that the company has its registered, office at Dalmianagar in the district of Rohtas. It is engaged in manufacture of a wide variety of products, including vanaspati, which is marketed in the brand -name of Hanuman. The company is Using the brand -name, namely, ''Hanuman" since 1943 and the same is also registered as trade mark No. 237292 dated 30.8.1966 under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, by the Registrar of Trade Marks and has been registered under part A of the Registers in the name of Rohtas Industries Ltd. This has been renewed from time to time under the said Act. From the petition, it appears that after the company had applied to the Registrar of the Trade marks for registration of the name "Hanuman" the application was duly published and objections were invited from the public in relation to the proposed registration and after observing all the formalities under the Act 'Hanuman' was registered as the trade mark for the vanaspati product of the company. There is no dispute regarding this.