Judgment : This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.178 of 2006 pending on the file of the 1st respondent-police. 2. The petitioners are accused of for an offence punishable under Section 103and 104of Trade marks Act, 1999. A private complaint has been filed and the learned Magistrate by an order dated 27.2.2006, directed the first respondent police to register and investigate the case. Accordingly, a case has been registered on 1.3.2006 for the aforesaid offences. 3. The short case of the prosecution is that the petitioners alleged to have printed, falsified and circulated the trade mark of the complainant. Though the trade mark was in use by both the parties, areas have been allocated by way of an understanding between the members of the family, which was violated, resulting in the filing of the present case. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that on the face of the allegations, the FIR could not have been registered, since a prima facie case is not made out against the petitioners and the proceedings must be quashed, even at the initial stage itself. To substantiate such contentions, it has been submitted that the petitioners and the complainant are descendants of a family. The ancestors have manufactured Beedi (Cigarettes) and Trade Mark by name “Poo Mark” was assigned by them; that by way of a deed of dissolution an understanding was arrived at between the descendants of this family as early as 27.9.1970. Both the descendant groups made use of this trade mark, but the areas have been allocated for each of them. It was further agreed that in the event of any violation of such conditions, the matter must be referred to an Arbitration and the erring party should pay compensation. In the mean time, the petitioners have purchased 8 share of the trade mark from one G.S. Mothiram, who is brother of the complainant and thereby 3/4 of the share was with the petitioners. The complainant was having 1/4 share. Under such circumstances, during the course of the business there was dispute between both the parties, as a result Civil Suits and Trade Mark Original Petitions, etc, have been filed. The petitioners, in the mean time, introduced other trade mark along with the trade mark in dispute, namely, Poo Mark and introduced the same to the areas where the complainant was having jurisdiction. The petitioners, in the mean time, introduced other trade mark along with the trade mark in dispute, namely, Poo Mark and introduced the same to the areas where the complainant was having jurisdiction. Under such circumstances, it is contended that the offence punishable under Section 103& 104of Trade Mark is not made out. It has been further contended that even otherwise, it is purely of civil nature and on the strength of the registration of the FIR, the respondents, in collusion with the complainant, attempted to seize the property of the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that the proceedings must be quashed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the case Ratansi Mulji v. Vinod Ratilal Gandhi AIR 1991 Bombay 407 and contended that the petitioners are the descendants of the same family of which the defacto-complinant belongs to and they are joint owners of the trade mark. Under such circumstances, the violation of the provisions of the trade mark will not arise at all. He also relied on the judgment reported in Brundaban Sahu v. Rajendra Subudhi AIR 1986 Orissa 210. 6. The learned Government Advocate submitted that as per the direction of the learned Magistrate a case has been registered on 1.3.2006 and investigation has been taken up. During the course of the investigation an opinion has been sought for as per the provisions of Trade Marks Actfrom the Assistant Registrar of Trade Mark and the opinion is yet to be received. The investigation, subsequently, has been transferred from the first respondent to the District Crime Bench, Virudhunagar, and the same is at the preliminary stage. It has been again contended that the investigation is at the threshold and the same cannot be quashed. The learned Government Advocate relied on a case reported in State of Punjab through Secretary, Home v. Subhash Kumar and others 2006 (1) SCC (Crl.) 324. 7. The learned counsel for the second respondent, namely, defacto-complainant submits that the allegations against the petitioners are that though they are the joint owners of the Trade Mark, they have printed, falsified and circulated the Trade Marks and sold into the area of the complainant and on the face of the allegations a prima facie case is made out; that when the investigation has been taken up, the proceedings cannot be quashed. As per the provisions of the Trade Mark Act, the offences are cognizable offences and the case has been registered as per the direction of the learned Magistrate and the respondent police may have to do their statutory obligations before filing the final report. The opinion has not been received from the Registrar of Trade Marks and the investigation is at the initial stage and at this stage quashing the proceedings will be illegal and will be violative of the direction of the Supreme Court. 8. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the FIR has been registered on the strength of the direction issued by the learned Magistrate. The case has been registered only on 1.3.2006. In the mean time because of the nature of the offence, it has been transferred from first respondent to District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar. Opinion has also been sought from the Assistant Registrar, Trade Mark and it is yet to be received. During the course of the investigation, materials will be collected and the investigating agency will come to a conclusion one way or the other. The petitioners are at liberty to furnish all the materials in oral and documentary form before the respondent -police to come to a correct conclusion. At the time, when a conclusion has not been reached by the investigating agency, it will be improper to quash the proceedings on the basis of the allegations made in the FIR. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to quash the FIR and therefore, the Crl. O.P. is dismissed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.Ps. are also dismissed.