1 2025:CGHC:3471 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1179 of 2018 M/s Prem Mehandi Centre Registered Office Banglow No. 59, Vijay Nagar Colony Adagaon Naka, Panchvati, District- Nashik, Maharashtra Through Proprietor Chatararam Gehlot S/o Nemaram Gehlot Through Authorised Representative Soman Singh Sengar, Aged 41 Years S/o Manni Singh Sengar R/o- Anepur, District- Auraya (U.P.) ... Petitioner(s) versus Prem Shagun S/o Jasumal Mehani S.S.D. Product, Through Proprietor Rajkumar Mehani, Om Nagar, Sindhi Colony Jarhabhata, P.S. Civil Lines Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Swayam Tehanguria holding the brief of Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. Swayam Tehanguria, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs: “3.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly call entire records pertaining to the Criminal Revision No.101/2017 dismissed by the Court of Sessions Judge Bilaspur and complaint filed by the complainant by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Class 1 Presided by Smt. Nidhi Sharma Bilaspur dismissed vide order dated 12/04/2017. 3.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow present petition by quashing order Annexure P-1 and P-2 and remand the case for being tried as per the provisions of prevailing laws. 3.3 That, any other relief/order, which this Hon'ble Court may found deem fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice equity and good conscience.” 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for registration of an offense under provisions of Section 103 and 104 of the Indian Trade Marks Act 1999, Section 64 & 65 of the Copyright Act, read with Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 473, 474, 476, 482, 483, 485 to 487 of the Indian Penal Code. This was for conducting a search for duplicate products and infringement of trade marks and copyrights owned by the petitioner. Along with the complaint, the petitioner also filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application filed on behalf of the petitioner directed P.S. Civil 3 Lines Bilaspur to conduct an inquiry into the matter and submit its report to the court. Statements were recorded by P.S. Civil Lines Bilaspur and submitted to the trial court, along with a covering memo. 4. It is stated in the complaint that the trade mark "Prem Dulhan" of the petitioner has been registered with the Trade Marks Registry of the Government of India under the Trade Marks Act 1999, which was valid and subsisting on the date of filing of the complaint. The petitioner/complainant has narrated their version in detail in their complaint,. These documents were important to corroborate the statements made in the complaint. Based on the enquiry report submitted by the police under provisions of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial court dismissed the complaint of the petitioner. The Sessions Court derived the conclusion that the statements made in support of the complaint cannot be evaluated in the revisional jurisdiction of the court and dismissed the Criminal Revision of the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that The petitioner, M/S Prem Mehandi Centre, is alleging that the respondent, Prem Shagun Rajkumar Mehani, has been falsifying and falsely applying the trademark "Prem Shagun" to their goods and packaging, which is deceptively similar to the petitioner's registered trademark "Prem Dulhan". The respondent has been manufacturing, packing, storing, distributing, and selling 4 counterfeit products, which has caused damage to the petitioner's well-established brand and trademark. The petitioner also claims that the respondent has been infringing on their trademarks and copyrights, which have been allotted to them by the Registrar of Trademarks and Registrar of Copyrights of the Government of India. The respondent's actions have affected the health of the public at large, and they have been counterfeiting the petitioner's trademarks and copyrights on their products and packaging. Furthermore, the respondent and their representatives have been in possession of and storing goods with falsified trademarks and infringing copies of artistic works, with the intention of using them fraudulently and dishonestly as genuine. The respondent has also been offering for sale and selling counterfeit products, which has caused harm to the petitioner's reputation. 6. He further submits that the petitioner has submitted that the respondent has dies, blocks, plates, instruments, and machinery for falsifying the petitioner's trademarks, and has permitted their premises to be used for selling spurious goods with falsified trademarks and infringing copies of artistic works. The inquiry report submitted by the police does not contain a copy of the registration certificate issued in favor of the respondent, which suggests that the respondent has been carrying out their business in violation of the law. The petitioner has also submitted that the respondent's trademark "Prem Shagun" is not registered, and that the trade mark application is pending and has been opposed by 5 the petitioner. He also submits that the learned trial court has erred in law and facts by holding that the purported registration of the respondent's trademark "Prem Shagun" is a valid defense to the complaint under the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has submitted that even if the registration of "Prem Shagun" is considered as granted, it does not absolve the respondent from liability under the Copyright Act and the Indian Penal Code. He later submits that the learned trial court has erroneously drawn its conclusion that the business carried out by the respondent is their bonafide right, when in fact it is in violation of the provisions of law for the time being in force, and the respondent is liable for criminal prosecution. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, considered his rival submissions made hereinabove and also perused the documents annexed with petition. 8. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the revisional Court has held that the respondent's use of the trademark "Prem Shagun Mehandi" was not assigned to them, and therefore, the conclusion drawn by the trial court is not justified. Upon examining the trial court's order dated 12/04/2017, it is clear that the respondent had presented self-attested documents during the police investigation, which were considered by the trial court. The trial court found that the respondent had registered the trademark "Prem Shagun Mehandi" with the trademark department, bearing registration number GW/434/2007 and trademark number 6 1553/19, dated 26.04.2007. The revisional Court also held that the trial Court concluded that the appellant's "Prem Dulhan Mehandi" logo and the respondent's "Prem Shagun Mehandi" logo are entirely different, and therefore, it does not appear that the respondent used the petitioner’s brand name or title logo for their business, which warrants no interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the petition being bereft of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil