BINOD KHANNA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by sole petitioner Binod Khanna against the State of West Bengal with prayer for quashing the proceedings being Case No. E 1 (EB), Case No. 978 dated 5th October, 2013 under Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter called as said case). Said case was initiated on a complaint (FIR) lodged by one Sanjay Mehta against the present petitioner on 6.9.2013. As per said complaint said Sanjay Mehta deals in Marketing in India the product SENDO, a Commercial Sewing Machine, a Product of Zhejiang SENDO Sewing Equipment Company Pvt. Ltd, China. Said Sanjay Mehta has applied for trade mark registration for the said product. Petitioner Binod Khanna has also claimed that he also deals in same product SENDO and has also applied for getting registration of trade mark SENDO. Said Sanjay Khanna has complained that this petitioner violated the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and he is liable to be prosecuted under Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

(2.) According to the claim of the present petitioner the complaint does not fulfil the ingredients to constitute offences punishable under Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. As such, the proceeding is liable to be quashed.

(3.) In substance, it appears from the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and its annexures including copy of FIR that both the present petitioner Binod Khanna and the informant Sanjay Mehta deal in same product SENDO Sewing Machine which is a product of China in India by importing the said machines and its equipments. Both of them have applied for trade mark registration before the appropriate authority. In the premises, it is crystal clear that there is business competition between the petitioner Binod Khanna and said informant Sanjay Mehta who has not been made party although leave was granted to the present petitioner for making him party. In my view, said Sanjay Mehta is the most interested person with the proceeding which has been sought to be quashed. This Court is of the opinion that quashing of the proceedings under Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 without giving opportunity of being heard to Sanjay Mehta will cause violation of the principles of natural justice as there is every possibility of causing prejudice to Sanjay Mehta in quashing the proceedings in the Court below.