JUDGMENT - Puranik, S.W. J.:- By this criminal application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the original complainant seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court to set right the order issued by the trial Court on 6.8.1983 directing issue of a show cause notice to the accused in the said complaintnant case, calling upon him to show cause why search warrant should not be issued against him. 2. The applicant M/s. D.M.R. Textiles of P.N.Road, Tiruppur, are manufacturers of readymade garments, in particular the men's underwear known as 'banians'. The applicants are the lawful owners of the trade marks “RINGO” and “DMR”. The brand “DMR” is also registered along with the.design under the Copy Rights Act. The above trade marks are also registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, and the trade marks registration Nos. are 266940 and 334288. 3. According to the complainant, since long they have been manufacturing these banians with the respective trade mark and copy right and they have earned goodwill and valuable reputation in the market. It is the specific allegation of the complainant, present applicant, that the accused Paramanand Dhingra, a businessman trading in the name and style of “M/s. Ganga Handloom Bhandar” at Readymade Oli, ltwari, Nagpur, is also using the said neck labels on the banians which is similar or deceptively similar to the registered trade mark of the complainant. According to the complaint, the accused is selling, and also has in his possession for sale, such banians with the above trade marks fixed to them. It is further alleged that the accused is doing so with the knowledge that the said trade marks are the property of the complainant, and that the act of the accused amounts to infringement of the rights of the complainant. It is on these allegations that the complainant had filed a private complaint case before the J.M.F.C., Nagpur, which is registered as Complaint Case No. 227 of 1983. The complaint is filed on 6.8.1983 and on the same date, the complainant filed an application before the trial court for issue of search warrant against the accused under Sections 93 and 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. The complaint is filed on 6.8.1983 and on the same date, the complainant filed an application before the trial court for issue of search warrant against the accused under Sections 93 and 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. On hearing the counsel of the complainant and perusal of the application and documents filed with the complaint case, the trial Court passed the following order:- “ …….Issue show cause notice to the N.A. as to why search warrant should not be issued. Emergent process be issued. Service by Hamdast is allowed.” The trial court then posted the case for 9.8.1983. 5. It is this order regarding the issue of show cause notice which is impugned by the complainant by this application. The original accused is not joined as a non-applicant in the present proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code*, inasmuch as no process has been issued to the accused nor any notice has been issued to him by the trial court so far. 6. Shri V.G. Bhangde, Advocate, appeared for the complainant, and the non-applicants, State of Maharashtra and the Trial Court are represented by Shri M.A. Garud, Public Prosecutor. I have heard the counsel for both the parties and I have also perused the application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code supported by affidavit of the complainant as well as the annexurcs attached herewith. 7. It is the case of the complainant that it is a manufacturer of ready made garments since lasl 15 years, that it sells its goods in large volume and have earned considerable goodwill and reputation in the market. The complainant has also averred on oath that the trade marks and labels fixed to his garments are duly registered under the Copy Rights Act as well as under the Trade Marks Act. In the said complaint, it has been specifically alleged that civil proceedings have been taken up by the complainant on the Original Side of the Madras High Court against the accused as well as against other dealers. The said civil suit is registered as Civil Suit No. 345 of 1983 before the High Court of Madras in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. In the said civil suit vide application No.2210 of 1983, the complainant-plaintiff therein, prayed for grant of ad-interin injunction against the accused and other persons. The said civil suit is registered as Civil Suit No. 345 of 1983 before the High Court of Madras in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. In the said civil suit vide application No.2210 of 1983, the complainant-plaintiff therein, prayed for grant of ad-interin injunction against the accused and other persons. The learned Judge of the Madras High Court, by order dated 11-7-1983 has granted ad interim injunction against the defendants therein, which include M/s. Ganga Handloom Bhandar Readymade Oli. ltwai,Nagpur, the accused in the instant complaint case. 8. The perusal of the complaint clearly shows a prima facie ease against the accused if the complainant would be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has in his stock for sale banians and under-wears of the complainant's trade marks or which are deceptively similar trade marks of the complainant. It is with that intention that the complainant has approched the trial court with an application under Section 93 read with Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking issuance of a search warrant. . 9. It is well settled that in complaint cases where the party seeks issuance of a search warrant, the accused is not ordinarily entitled to be heard. The very provisions of issue of search warrant is to enable the investigating authority or the complainant to secure some incriminating evidence against the accused from his possession. It does not mean that any rights of the complainant, much less the fundamental rights under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, are, in any way, contravened. Section 93(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code states the situation where the court may issue a search warrant when it considers that the purposes of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code will be served by a general search or inspection and produce the documents or articles. Such general search warrant can be issued irrespective of the fact that the documents or the articles seized during such search may contain some material which may have the tendency to incriminate the atcused. 10. No doubt, the trial court has discretionary powers of granting the prayer of issue of search warrants. However, the issuance of a search warrant being a serious matter, it would be advisable not to dispose of the application for search warrant in a mechanical way. 10. No doubt, the trial court has discretionary powers of granting the prayer of issue of search warrants. However, the issuance of a search warrant being a serious matter, it would be advisable not to dispose of the application for search warrant in a mechanical way. It requires application of mind on the part of the magistrate and it must be discernible in the order granting a search warrant. 11. In the instant case, the trial court has merely issued a show cause notice to the accused irrespective of the fact that there was prima facie material before it in the context of the registered trade marks and copy rights of the complainant and. the averment that the accused is in possession of garments using the trade mark of the complainant and further the averments that an order of interim injunction has been passed against the accused in this very regard by the High Court at Madras. This clearly shows the casual approach of the trial court in this case. It was incumbent upon the magistrate to apply his mind to all the averments and documents before him and then come to the conclusion as to whether it is necessary to issue a search warrant or not. No useful purpose would be served by issuing a show cause notice to the accused. On the contrary, the accused would be getting a notice in advance to suppress or remove the goods which are in his possession and over which he may have used the property mark of the complainant. 12. It is in the light of these circumstances, I feel that the case is a (It one where the inherent powers should be invoked to interfere with the impugned order. It is clearly a case where.there is abuse of the process of the Court and the ends of justice are likely to be deviated by merely issuing a show cause notice to the accused. It is very likely that after the search is conducted there might be material in support of the complainant's allegations available with the accused. It is equally likley that nothing incriminating may be found in the custody of the accused whereby the trial court would be in a position to throw out the complaint case as being without any substance. It is very likely that after the search is conducted there might be material in support of the complainant's allegations available with the accused. It is equally likley that nothing incriminating may be found in the custody of the accused whereby the trial court would be in a position to throw out the complaint case as being without any substance. In any event, it was a case where the trial court ought to have issued a search warrant against the accused. In this view of the matter, I pass the following order :- 13. The impugned order dated 6.8.1983 is quashed and set aside and, instead, it is directed that a search warrant be issued against the accused at the address mentioned in the complaint. Rule absolute. Order Set aside : Rule absolute ----