S. S. GANGULY, J. ( 1 ) IT appears that the opposite party No. 1 lodged a complaint alleging that he was manufacturing dry cell batteries with the trade mark of Tiger and having his own signatures on them, that he caught the present petitioner also producing similar batteries and that when challenged the present petitioner pounced upon him and his two companions abused him in filthy language and assaulted him by fist and blows and threatened to murder him if any legal action was taken against him. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons. The present petitioner appeared before him and subsequently filed an application for discharge. Holding that cognizance had already been taken in this case, the learned Magistrate rejected his prayer for discharge. Hence, this revisional application. ( 2 ) IT appears that summons has been issued by the court under sections 323/504/506/ 420/468 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 3 ) EVEN from the seized battery it appears that the signature appearing on it was that of Sushil Kumar Saha, and not Sunil Kumar Saha which is the name of opposite party No. 1. The signature has also not been made in the same way and it does not appear to be from the same hand. In that view of the matter section 468 has no application to the facts of the present case. ( 4 ) EVEN though the present petitioner is producing batteries and using the trade mark of the opposite party No. 1, he cannot be hauled up for committing any offence since section 27 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958 prohibits institution any proceeding to prevent or to recover damages for infringement of an unregistered Trade Mark. It is not disputed that the Trade Mark which the opposite party No. 1 is using at present has not been registered as yet and that an application from his side as well as an application from the side of the present petitioner are both pending before the appropriate authorities for the purpose of registration of the said trade mark. In that view of the matter the present petitioner cannot be said to have committed anything wrong by using the trade mark of the opposite party No. 1. In that view of the matter the present petitioner cannot be said to have committed anything wrong by using the trade mark of the opposite party No. 1. Even if therefore he has made some profit by selling the batteries, thereby causing some loss to the opposite party No. 1, thereby the present petitioner cannot be said to have caused any wrongful loss to the opposite party No. 1 the charge under section 421 also does not apply. As for the other three sections namely, sections 323/504/506 it is the case of the opposite party No. 1 himself that he and his companions went to the factory of the present petitioner and asked him as to why he was forging his signature. It is obvious therefore that as per his own admission the opposite party No. 1 asked for trouble and that too while inside the factory the opposite party No. 1 by asking the petitioner why he was forging his signature while he was doing nothing of the kind. In the process if there was any trouble for this, he has-only himself to think for In any case I do not think that the situation came to such a pass as made it absolutely necessary for the opposite party No. 1 to burden the file of already over burdened criminal courts by filing the criminal case. ( 5 ) FROM what has been stated above it becomes quite clear that the opposite party No. 1 wanted by filing the present case to restrain the present petitioner from selling batteries which look very much like the batteries produced by him and to create pressure upon him since he was the only claimant besides he himself for the aforementioned Trade Mark. It is obvious that the case was filed not with the intention of preventing the acquittal but the criminal law and procedure have been enacted. In that view of the matter it should be concluded to allow the present case to go on will amount to allowing an abuse on the process of the court. The proceeding of the present criminal case should therefore be quashed. In the circumstances stated the proceeding of Case No. 459 of 1980 pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, sealda it is hereby quashed. The rule is made absolute. Send the case records back to the learned Magistrate immediately. The proceeding of the present criminal case should therefore be quashed. In the circumstances stated the proceeding of Case No. 459 of 1980 pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, sealda it is hereby quashed. The rule is made absolute. Send the case records back to the learned Magistrate immediately. Petition quashed.