ANIL MITTAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIL Mittal, by means of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks quashing of complaint instituted by respondent-3 for offence under Section 77, 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (for short the Act) pending in the Court of JMIC Batala.

(2.) RESPONDENT -3 filed a complaint for offences under Section 77, 78 and 79 of the Act claiming that his firm was the registered owner of Trade Mark 'Taj Mahal' and carrying on the business of Basmati Rice. He had learnt that some businessmen and firms were manufacturing, selling, distributing, exporting Basmati Rice in the name of Taj Mahal at various places. They were, however, not authorised to use their Trade Mark. In that complaint, a general search warrant under Section 93 Cr.P.C. was issued and ASI Sadhu Ram of PS City Batala seized and took into possession 332 rice bags carrying the marking of Taj Mahal. The order issued by the Magistrate in that complaint were the subject of challenge in Cr.M. 6994-M/89 which was dismissed on Feb. 3,1992. In SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was represented that the complaint had also been challenged as malafide. This question having not been covered by the judgment of this Court it was directed to move the High Court for review if the statement made by the petitioner was accurate.

(3.) ON the basis of the observations of their Lordships of Supreme Court in M/s Karamchand Ganda Pershad and another v. Union of India and others, AIR 1971 SC 1244 that the decisions of the Civil Courts are binding on Criminal Courts, he has urged that whatever decision will come in the civil litigation will have to be binding on the Criminal Court, as such the proceedings should not be allowed to be continued. It has to be noted that the civil litigation started subsequent to the criminal complaint filed by the respondent. If this principle is to be applied, then in most of the cases, it shall be convenient for an accused person to start civil litigation and ask forestalling of the criminal prosecution. I may further observe that there is not an absolute bar on the continuation of civil and criminal litigation simultaneously.