Dismissed

Sri Ramneesh Garg and another v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC2 Aug 2022CRLP/1890/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings against petitioners accused of selling spurious LPG valves and infringing trademarks. The court held that prima facie case existed and no grounds showed interference was necessary for justice.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; proceedings/quashment of charge sheet refused.

Sri Ramneesh Garg and another Vs The State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

t TUESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF^AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE^{CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA}

¶5

CR IMINAL PETITION NO: 1890^{OF 2021}

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sri Ramneesh Garg, S/o. Sh.^{Had Ram Garg,aged about 43 years Occ.} business, R/o.G-1 7/9, Sector-¹ 5 Rohini^{North, West Delhi}

¶8

Sri Hari Ram Garg, S/o. late Sri^{Gulab Rai, aged about76 years Occ.} business, R/o. G-1719, Sector-15^{Rohini North,WestDelhi}

¶9

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.1 & 2

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, represented by^{Public ProsecutorHighCourt'} Hyderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENT/STATE

¶13

Sri P. Sadanand, S/o. Sri Saraiah, aged^{about57 years Occ. business'} General Manager in M/s. Trans Valves^{(lndia) Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.'15-B, SVC} Cooperative lndustrial Estate lDA,^{Jeedirnetla, Ranga Reddy district.}

¶14

...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of^{Criminal Petition,the HighCourt may be} pleased to quash the proceedings in the case in C.C.No.152l2021 on the file of the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal,^{Ranga Reddydistrict, against} the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2, holding^{the same as illegal,high handed'} arbitrary, unreasonable, against law,^{lack of jurisdiction,etc., in the interest of} justice.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1OF 202'l

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of^Cr.P .C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition,the HighCourt may be} pleased to pass order staying all further proceedings in C.C.No.1^{5212O21on the}

¶18

file of the 30.0 Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at l,4edchal, Ranga Reddy district, including appearance and arrest of the petitioners herein / accused No.1 and 2, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition, in the interest of justice.

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Shyam S Agrawal, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶25

CRIMINAL PETITION No. l89O of 2O2L

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard the submission of Sri Shyam S. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor, who is representing respondent No.1 State. Despite service of notice upon respondent No.2/defacto complainant, he failed to appear aiid submit his contention.

¶28

Seeking to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioners, who are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.152 of 2O2L on the file of the Court of XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, the present Criminal Petition is filed.

¶29

The matrix of the case, as could be perceived through the contents of the charge sheet is, that respondent No.2 Company is a reputed and long established ISO 9OO1 Company dealing with the business of manufacture and supply of LPG Valves and LPG Regulators since 1987. The products of respondent No.2/defacto complainant Company have approval from the Chief Controiler of Explosives, Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization, Nagpur,

¶30

¶31

)

¶32

Dr Csl..J Crl.P.No l8e0 ol20ll

¶33

arld also having various licenses of Bureau of India Standards. Their products were manufactured and sold under TVL Brand and their TVL logo is a registered Trade Mark of the Company. There is good demand for their products in the market. The product-s are being sold through their Dea-lers in the open market. Howev<:r, tluring survey, it was found that spurious Valves are being sold in the market. On survey by the representatives of the Company, they found that the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 are selling those spurious Valves with TVL mark, but without BIS license. The Company's representative purchased the Valves, which are spurious and similar from the shop of the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and obtained bill. Thus, the petitioners by dishonestly selling the spurious Valves thereby cheated respondent No. 2 / defacto complainant Company.

¶34

Making his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 contended that the petitioners have not committed any offences whatsoever ald, indeed, it is not the dutr of respondent No.2 Company to investigate into the alleged fraud, if any, and further petitioner No. 1/Accused No.1 is the Proprietor of M/s. Industrial Sales Corporation, which dea-ls

¶35

¶36

Dr CSL.J CrlP.No 111q0 oi202l

¶37

with LPG Gas Stoves and Spa-re parts at different parts of the country, and thus, he cannot be held iiable. Learned counsel further submits that no cause of action arose at Hyderabad and, therefore, the Court, which is dealing r,r'ith the case, has no jurisdiction to dea-l with the matter. Learned counsel further submitted that the police relied upon Invoice dated 16.07.2019 and the complaint was a,iso lodged on the even date, artd hence, the alleged purchase through the said Invoice is exfacie created ald fabricated for the purpose of this case. Learned counsel further submits that in case respondent No.2/defacto complainant has any grievance, he has to proceed by issuing notice, as required under Trade Marks Act, but launching of the criminal proceedings is undesirable. By stating so, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks indulgence of this Court to quash the proceedings.

¶38

Vehemently opposing the submission made, the leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that on a thorough investigation, charge sheet is filed and the Investigating OIIicer, who investigated the case, has collected relevant material, which reveals guilt of the petitioners. The learned Assistant Public

-.' - ---'

Dr. CSL.J Crl.P.No lEqo ol 202 |

¶43

Prosecutor also submits that even a private individual is competent to bring it to the notice of the police concerned about the commission of offence and, therefore, there is nothing wrong in respondent No.2 /defacto complainant Company employing its men to verifv about the sale of spurious articles and thereafter giving a complaint to the police. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further states that since the charge sheet is filed a_fter due investigation, quashing of the charge sheet is undesirable. The lear-ned Assistalt Public Prosecutor also submitted that on investigation, it is found that the petitioners have committed offences punishable under Sections 420 IPC, Sections 51 and 63 of the Copy Rights Act, 1957 and Sections 1O2 and 103 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

¶44

In the complaint given, respondent No.2/defacto complainant Company contended that the Accused unjustly enriched themselves at the cost of the Company and the common man and their company is proud of its products, which meets National and International standards, and the petitioners, by violating the Trade Mark given arrd the license granted in favour of his Company, have involved in supplying inferior quality

¶45

¶46

¶47

DT, CSLJ Cd P.No.l890 of 2021

¶48

products by duplicating their mark and they are^{selling their} products in the open market and^{therebythey have cheatednot} only the Company, but also the^{common customers.}

¶49

7 . As rightly contended by the learned^{Assistant Public} Prosecutor, having fottnd pima-facie case,^{police have laid charge} sheet. How far the allegations^{levelled against the} petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 could be established^{by the} Prosecuting Agency before the competent^{Court beyond} reasonable doubt is altogether a different^{aspect. In case, pima-} facie^{allegations are found and where no justi{iablegrounds are} projected so as to exercise the^{power granted} under^{Section 482} Cr.P.C., this Court is of the view that it^is not^{desirableto exercise} such a power and^quash the^proceedings.

¶50

No grounds whatsoever are projected or shown^exhibiting that interference of this Court is required in^{order to prevent} abuse of the process of law and that^{quashment is necessary to} meet the ends of^{justice.Therefore,this Court is of the view that} the request of the petitioners/Accused^{Nos. Iand 2 cannot be} honoured.

¶51

¶52

Dr. CSt-J Crl.P.No.lE90 of 2021

¶53

Resultantly, this Crimina_l Petition is dismissed.

¶54

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if aly, shall

¶55

stand closed.

¶56

SD/.T.SRINIVAS DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ' .lL

¶57

SECTION OFFICER

¶58

To, 1 . The XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, Ranga Reddy District. ) The S^tation^Ho_use Officer, Jeedimetla P.S., Cy_berabad District, Hyderabad. 3 9n" 99^{to Sri Shyam S Agrawal, Advocate} IOPUCI 4 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for t6e State of.Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI q Two CD Copies u One Spare Copy gbr*I"

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0210812022

ORDER

CRLP.No.1890 of 2021

$ e .: l-ArG:
:)
:) I 1 rtl 2$22 fr
1-)
-!
,,\ t
I]:: '..?

¶64

DISMISSING THE CRL.P

¶65

@xe

Sri Ramneesh Garg and another v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramneesh Garg and another v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Sivarama Reddy and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Shailendra Goje Vs The State of Telangana

Samala Narsimha Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Prasad Anukonda , Anumukonda Thirumala Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Rachuri Vijay Suman Vs The State of Telangana

Bayya Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana