BRIJESH @ BHOLA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) By way of this petition, the accused-petitioner prays for quashment of the impugned first information report dtd. 15/1/2022 registered in Case Crime No.0028 of 2022 under Ss. 420, 468, 469, 481, 482, 483, 485, 486, 487, 488 I.P.C., Sec. 63, 65 of Copy Right Act (Amendment) 1957 and Ss. 103, 104 of Trade Mark Act, 1999, Police Station Tajganj, District Agra and also for staying his arrest in respect of the aforesaid first information report.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither there is infringement of Copy Right (Amended) Act 1957 nor Trade Marks Act, 1999 and due to business rivalry, the respondent no.4 has lodged the F.I.R. when in fact, the petitioner has nowhere used the name of Panchi Petha, which is the firm of the respondent no.4. He further submits that the learned Magistrate has allowed the application under Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. which has resulted into lodgement of the impugned F.I.R. He further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated on the ground that he is running a business of Petha and Dalmoth in the name and style of Petha Dalmoth without using the trademark of Panchi Petha. Learned counsel has next argued that prior to running of aforesaid business by the petitioner, the petitioner was working as a Manager in the firm of Panchi Petha since 2015 to 2020, whereas the petitioner started his own business after the lockdown in the country. It is lastly argued that since the petitioner was working as Manager in the firm of Panchi Petha, thereafter started his own business, due to which the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case.