ANIL KUMAR Vs. SHRI ANIL SABHARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIL Sabharwal respondent No. 1 filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patiala (C) against Anil Kumar petitioner and one Jagdish Chand, Proprietor, International Trading Company, Patiala, under sections 77, 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, and section 63 of the Copyright Act, with the allegations which are these. The respondent is a partner of the Firm Peshawar Soap and Chemical Works, also Trading under the name and style of Peshawar Soap Factory, Adalat Bazar, Patiala. The said Firm was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of soaps. The Firm is a Registered Proprietor of the Trade Mark 'Keshnikhar'. It is also the Registered Proprietor of the Art Work of the label of that soap under the Copyright Act. On account of long and continuous user of the Trade Mark Keshnikhar and the carton, the said Trade Mark and the distinctive carton have achieved a unique reputation. In September (year not mentioned) the complainant came to know that Anil Kumar petitioner was running a Factory at Kharak Panda, District Jind (Haryana), through which he had started manufacturing and selling soap under the Mark 'Balnikhar. It was alleged that the carton of the soap of the petitioner has the same colour, orientation, get up and size as those of the soap of the complainant 'Keshnikhar' It was thus, alleged that the petitioner had committed an offence under sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. In regard to Jagdish Chand accused No. 2, it was alleged in Para 19 of the complaint that he was selling the offending soap in Patiala. The respondent, therefore, prayed that, the two accused be punished under sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and section 63 of the Copyright Act. Copy of the complaint has been annexed with the present petition as Annexure P/4.

(2.) AS per order, dated January 17, 1984 (Copy Annexure P/6), the trial Court after recording the preliminary evidence of the complainant, summoned both the accused, i.e. the petitioner and Jagdish Chand for offences under the aforesaid provisions. By means of the present petition under section 482. Code of Criminal Procedure, the complaint Annexure P/4 and the summoning order Annexure P/6 are sought to be quashed. A prayer is also made for the quashing of Search Warrants issued by the Court vide its order, dated August 11, 1984 and the proceedings of the search of the premises of the petitioner effected on August 13, 1984 in consequences of the said Search Warrants.

(3.) BEFORE the arguments were addressed, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to explain as to why Tarsem Chand, Incharge Police Post Tripuri, Tehsil and District Patiala, had been arrayed as a respondent in this petition. The counsel submitted that a search had been conducted by the said Officer in the premises of the petitioner under orders of the trial Court and the said order as also the proceedings of search had been impugned in the present petition. This does not, however, give any cause of action against the said respondent, who is an unnecessary party in this controversy, especially when no relief is claimed against this respondent. It, therefore, ordered that the name of Tarsem Chand respondent No. 2 be deleted from the roll of respondents in the present petition.