JUDGMENT : Mahmood Ali Khan, J. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing an order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks dated 15.5.2001 declining to prosecute the respondent No. 1 under Section 81 read with Section 83 of the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act). 2. The relevant facts are that the petitioners. which is a manufacturer of cycles, made a complaint on 10.6.2000 to the Registrar of Trade Marks (respondent No. 2) for prosecuting the respondent No. 1, another manufacturer of the cycles, that it has mis-represented through published documents that it was proprietor of a registered trade mark depicted therein whereas the said trade mark was not actually registered in its name. The registrar sent a notice to the respondent which in reply opposed the application. Before the Registrar it was submitted .on behalf of .the respondent that the respondent was registered proprietor of trade mark AVON with logo under registration Nos. 190614, 225126, 250696, 312203, 389357, 389358 and 398984 and as such there was no such mis-representation on the part of the respondent justifying its prosecution under Sections 81 and 83 of the Act. It was also submitted that the respondent was a leading manufacturer of bicycles and largest exporter of its goods and its trade mark AVON is well known globally in respect of cycles. On the other hand the petitioner placed some documents published in the newspaper etc., to show that the respondent was not a registered proprietor of the trade mark as shown in these publications/documents. The Registrar found that the respondent was a registered proprietor of the trade mark AVON (word per se) and the trade mark AVON with some numerical and the trade mark AVON with logo Nos. 190649, 225126, 250696, 312203, 389357, 389358 and 398984 some out of others. These registered trade marks essentially consisting of either the word AVON or the logo consisting of the word AVON and the alphabet A with Wings. The Registrar further held that the trade mark indicated in the caution notice are more or less the same consisting of the essentially the word AVON as their trade mark, therefore, there was no mis-representation made by the respondent. Re, therefore, did not find any material justifying the prosecution of the respondent under Sections 81 and 83 of the Act. The Registrar further held that the trade mark indicated in the caution notice are more or less the same consisting of the essentially the word AVON as their trade mark, therefore, there was no mis-representation made by the respondent. Re, therefore, did not find any material justifying the prosecution of the respondent under Sections 81 and 83 of the Act. The petitioner is aggrieved and filed this petition. 3. The complaint was filed by the petitioner before the Registrar of Trade Marks for prosecution of the respondent for making mis-representation by publication in the newspaper and otherwise that it was the proprietor of the registered trade mark. The Registrar has found that trade mark which is registered in the name of the respondent No. 1 is more or less similar to the trade mark which was shown in the caution notice by the respondent and was the basis of the complaint. It was also not denied before him that the respondent No. 1 is the leading manufacturer of bicycles in the country and it was using that registered trade mark since long. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that the trade mark, which is registered in the name of the respondent, is not exactly identical to the trade mark about which mis-representation was made in the published document. It is submitted that if the two were similar there was no need for the respondent No. 1 to have submitted fresh application for registration of that trade mark also in its name. It was accordingly submitted that the Registrar has failed in its statutory duty to prosecute the respondent for contravention of Sections 81 and 83 of the Act. 4. Sections 81 and 83 of the Act, which being relevant, are reproduced as under :- "81. It was accordingly submitted that the Registrar has failed in its statutory duty to prosecute the respondent for contravention of Sections 81 and 83 of the Act. 4. Sections 81 and 83 of the Act, which being relevant, are reproduced as under :- "81. Penalty for falsely representing a trade mark as registered (1) No person shall make any representation (a) with respect to a mark not being a registered trade mark, to the effect that it is a registered trade mark ; or (b) with respect to a part of a registered trade mark not being a part separately registered as a trade mark, to the effect that it is separately registered as a trade mark ; or (c) to the effect that a registered trade mark is registered in respect of any goods in respect of which it is not in fact registered ; or (d) to the effect that the registration of a trade mark gives an exclusive right to the use thereof in any circumstances in which, having regard to limitations entered on the register, the registration does not in fact give that right. (2) If any person contravenes any of the provisions of sub-section (1), he shall he punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with tine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. (2) If any person contravenes any of the provisions of sub-section (1), he shall he punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with tine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. (3) For the purposes of this section, the use in India, in relation to a trade mark of the word "registered" or of any other expression referring whether expressly or impliedly to registration, shall be deemed to import a reference to registration in the register, except (a) where that word or other expression is used in direct association with other words delineated in characters at least as large as those in which that word or other expression is delineated and indicating that the reference is to registration as trade mark under the law of a country outside India being a country under the law of which the registration referred to is in fact in force ; or (b) where that other expression is of itself such as to indicate that the reference is to such registration as is mentioned in clause (a) ; or (c) where that word is used in relation to a mark registered as a trade mark under the law of a country outside India and in relation solely to goods to he exports to that country." "83. Penalty for falsification of entries in the register If any person makes, or causes to he made, a false entry in the register, or a writing falsely purporting to be a copy of an entry in the register, or produces or tenders, or causes to be produced or tendered, in evidence any such writing, knowing the entry or writing to be false, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." 5. Sub-section (1) of Section 81, inter alia, prohibits making of a representation that a certain trade mark is registered when it is not actually a registered trade mark. Sub-section (2) provides the punishment for contravention of Sub-section. (1). The person who contravenes the provision of Sub-section (1) is liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with a fine which may extend to Rs. 500/- or with both. 6. Sub-section (2) provides the punishment for contravention of Sub-section. (1). The person who contravenes the provision of Sub-section (1) is liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with a fine which may extend to Rs. 500/- or with both. 6. Section 83 above mentioned, on the other hand, provides prosecution of it person who has made (1) false entry in the register of trade marks ;(2) a writing falsely purporting to be a copy of an entry of such register ; and (3) uses such documents in evidence knowing entry or writing to he false. The punishment for such offence is imprisonment for a term which extended to two years or with a fine or with both. This section as such prohibits falsification of trade mark registration record and use of copies of forged/false entries of the registers. Offence carries heavier punishment. 7. Another provision which may be noticed here is Section 89 of the Act. It provides that no court would take cognizance of an offence under Sections 81, 82 and 83 except on complaint in writing made by the Registrar or any officer authorised by him in writing. 8. Since the complaint has to he made by the Registrar, or a person authorised by him, for the prosecution of the person, under clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Sections 81 and 83 the duty is cases upon him to apply his mind to the facts placed before him and decide whether the offence complained against requires it complaint to be made against the offender in it criminal court. The Registrar has to consider this question objectively and come to a view that the acts complained of constitute an offence under Sub-section (1) of Section 81 and Section 83 and for effective enforcement of the provision of the Act and protection of registered trade marks it seems necessary that the complaint should be made against the offender. Registrar will act on a complaint received by him only if he is satisfied that the act complaint against is such that call for punishment of the offender. The decision whether the prosecution is warranted or not has to he taken keeping in view the particular facts of each case. Registrar will act on a complaint received by him only if he is satisfied that the act complaint against is such that call for punishment of the offender. The decision whether the prosecution is warranted or not has to he taken keeping in view the particular facts of each case. The complaint cannot be and should not be made to satisfy the personal grudge or help an individual to wreak vengeance on an opponent. A little infraction with these provisions, which, in the view of the Registrar, will not result in the conviction of the person complained against will not be sufficient material for the Registrar to make a complaint to a criminal court for prosecution of a person. 9. In the instant case the reading of the orders of the Assistant Registrar, impugned in this petition, shows that the Registrar has found the trade marks which are registered in the name of the respondent more or less similar to the one about which representation was made. The petitioner does not dispute it nor does it says that the registration was made in respect of his own or another persons trade mark. It is also not stated that this registration is in respect of some articles other than cycles manufactured by the respondent and for which the respondent already holds similar trade marks. May be the respondent applied for registration of this trade mark also to obviate the possibility of such complaints in future. The Registrar was justified in declining to make a complaint simply to assist a rival manufacturer of cycles in pursuing a vendetta. 10. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Registrar. The petition has no merit. It is dismissed in limini.