ORDER :- Challenged in this revision is the impugned summoning order dated 16-6-1993, passed by Judicial Magistrate I, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 32/9 of 92 Vaidya Gokalesh Pathak v. Managing Director Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works u/Ss. 295-A, 298 and 504 IPC, P. S. Inchauli, district Meerut. The grounds for challenge is that no offence at all is made out against the revisionist, the proceedings are actuated with mala fides and the Magistrate without any application of mind has summoned the revisionist. 2. The facts, in brief, as are perceptable from the record of this revision are that Complaint No. 32/9 of 92 was filed by Vaidya Gokalesh Pathak against the Managing Director, Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works, Vinoba Bhavey Road Mysore, P. S. Mangalore, Karnataka for offences u/Ss. 295-A, 298 and 504 IPC, P.S. Inchauli, district Meerut on 22-12-2003 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate I, Meerut with the allegations that the complainant Gokalesh Pathak is a follower of Hindu religion and belongs to a Brahman family. He is a great devotee of "Lord Ganesh who is a most sacred deity of Hindus. Before starting any work by Hindus, for a successful and uniterrupted completion of the same, Lord Ganesh is worshiped. Lord Ganesh is considered to be deity of wisdom and prosperity and he also diminishes miseries. 3. Smoking is considered to be a vice in Hindus and is a social malady. The accused Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works is depicting picture of Lord Ganesh at its Bidi product as a result of which the religious susceptibility of Hindus are being hurt. It is also alleged that the accused is utilizing the name of the said pious deity for his commercial benefit. It is further alleged that after smoking of Bidi the residue is thrown on the roads and on the other filthy places and the said residues are being trampled under the shoes, which hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus and brings disrepute to the deity. It is further alleged that complainant had given a notice to the accused but he has not stopped hurting the religious sentiments of Hindus by not removing depiction of Lord Ganesh from its bidi product therefore it has committed offences u/Ss. 295-A, 298 and 504 IPC. With the aforesaid allegation the complainant prayed that the accused be summoned and be punished for committing aforementioned offences. 4. 295-A, 298 and 504 IPC. With the aforesaid allegation the complainant prayed that the accused be summoned and be punished for committing aforementioned offences. 4. Judicial Magistrate I, Meerut vide his impugned order dated 6-6-1993 summoned the applicant u/S. 298 IPC only and fixed 3-8-1993 for his appearance. Hence this revision. 5. I have heard Sri Sudhanshu Dhuliya, Senior Advocate and Sri Himanshu Kane Advocates in support of this revision and learned AGA in opposition. Nobody appeared to argue the revision on behalf of complainant though on 10-10-2006 time was sought by the counsel to seek instructions. 6. Controversy in this revision lies in a narrow compass as to whether depicting picture of Lord Ganesh at its beedi product by Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works hurts religious susceptibilities of Hindus or not for making out offence u/S 298 IPC?. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that no offence u/S. 298 IPC is made out at all, as the feeling of Hindus are not at all hurt. They submitted that in many a judicial pronouncements this question had been decided in favour of the revisionist by various High Courts including ours and there remains nothing in favour of the complainant for making out offence u/S. 298 IPC against the revisionist. They further submitted that Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works is a registered partnership firm manufacturing Mangalore Ganesh Bidi at Vinoba Road, Mysore, Karnataka. The firm is represented by Sri M Suresh Rao as One of its partner. The said firm is using the picture of Lord Ganesh on its product as its trade Marks with expressions "Mangalore Ganesh Beedi" and numeral "501" since more than 50 years. This tradeMarks With picture of Lord Ganesh is duly registered under the Trade and Merchandise Markss Act, 1958 herein after referred as Act. They further submitted that the notice dated 29-9-1992 issued by the complainant was duly replied by the accused through his advocate Sri W. H. Kane of Solicitor Firm W. H. Kane and Company of Bombay on 14-10-1992 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the Trade Marks used by the accused is duly registered under the Act and that u/S. 23 of the Act there is no prohibition imposed by the Central Government from using the said Marks having picture of Lord Ganesh. They further contended that the Magistrate after filing of the complaint did not conduct any inquiry as is contemplated u/S. 200 Cr. P. C. and 202 Cr. P. C. and without holding such an inquiry, summoned the accused revisionist by passing the impugned order, which is wholly illegal and is in the teeth of the procedure prescribed for the complaint case under Chapter XV Cr. P. C. They further submitted that none of the ingredients of Section 298 IPC is made out from the bare perusal of the complaint and therefore, summoning order as well as whole prosecution against the revisionist are liable to be quashed. 8. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that Madras High Court in original petition No. 113/1987 A. T. Raja Madras v. Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works had decided in favour of the accused that by depicting the picture of Lord Ganesh on their beedi product as well as using the name of Lord Ganesh, the firm do not offend any of the provisions u/Ss. 9, 11, (d), 56, 107 of the Act. They further contended that in the aforesaid judgment Madras High Court has held that smoking is not prohibited by religious doctrines of Hindus. u/S. 23 of the Act the Central Government has not prohibited depicting the picture of Lord Ganesh as a tradeMarks. Learned counsel for the applicant further relied upon many other judgments in support of their contention, which shall be referred at their appropriate stage in this judgment. 9. Learned AGA on the other hand submitted that in this case depicting of picture of Lord Ganesh at Beedi by the revisionist was deliberate and intentional act and therefore the offence for which revisionist has been summoned is fully made out and the complainant must get a chance to prove his version of allegations. He contended that at the stage of summoning only a prima-facie case is to be seen and once that is disclosed summoning order cannot be set aside. He further submitted that offence u/S. 298 IPC is clearly made out and, therefore, this revision being meritless and deserves to be dismissed as the act of the revisionist accused was done with the intention of wounding the religious sentiments of Hindus. 10. I have considered the submissions raised by both the sides and have gone through the affidavit filed in support of this revision. 11. 10. I have considered the submissions raised by both the sides and have gone through the affidavit filed in support of this revision. 11. Before adverting to appreciate the contention raised by the revisionist, relevant provisions are referred. 12. Section 298 IPC provides that whoever with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person utters any words or make any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in the sight of that person or places any object in the sight of that person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or both. 13. The question, that comes up for consideration is as to whether the revisionists have committed the said offence or not ? 14. From the allegations levelled in complaint, it is nowhere mentioned that feelings of Hindus were hurt. Nothing tangible and specific has been levelled in the complaint. No instances have been quoted and only generalized statement has been made in the complaint, which cannot be taken as commission of any offence. It is to be borne in mind that Section 298 IPC is a penal provision which requires strict interpretation. From the perusal of the complaint, I am not at all satisfied that act of the revisionist was with deliberate intention to hurt the religious feeling and sentiments of Hindus. Thus the ingredients of Section 298 IPC are not satisfied in this case, which is sine qua non for summoning of any person as an accused. 15. Further the record reveals that the Magistrate while summoning the revisionist has not observed whether he had at all followed procedure under Chapter XV of Cr. P. C. relating to complaint to a Magistrate. The summoning order is silent as to whether any statement u/S. 200 Cr. P. C. of the complainant and that of his witness u/S. 202 Cr. P. C. were recorded or not ? The revisionist has taken a specific ground that they have been summoned without conducting any inquiry as is contemplated in Chapter XV Cr. P. C. Learned AGA also failed to bring on record anything to rebut the said contention. On the contrary order sheet dated 10-10-2006 indicates that counsel for the complainant O.P. had made a statement before this Court that he had got no instructions. P. C. Learned AGA also failed to bring on record anything to rebut the said contention. On the contrary order sheet dated 10-10-2006 indicates that counsel for the complainant O.P. had made a statement before this Court that he had got no instructions. In this view of the matter it is not clear as to whether the Magistrate conducted any inquiry on the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 or not. In absence of any reference of the said inquiry in the impugned order, I am left with no option but to presume that the Magistrate has not conducted any such inquiry which was an indispensable necessity unless the complaint is filed by a public servant. 16. Moreover, learned counsel for the revisionist relied upon a judgment of Bombay High Court rendered in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1072 of 1991 K. R. Mallya v. Maulana Ayyub Kadri alias Baba Kadri and others decided by Hon. Mrs. Justice S. S. Parkar, on 24-8-1999. In the aforesaid judgment the very question, which is involved here was considered. After going into a detailed discussion and looking into the provisions of Trade and Merchandise Markss Act 1958, His Lordship held that no offence has been committed by the respondent No. 2 which was Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works and was pleased to quash Criminal Case No. 772 of 91 pending before J. M. F. C. Court No. 1 Pune and the process issued by the said Court on 14-6-1991 against the respondents Maulana Ayyob Kadri alias Baba Kadri and Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works in that case. 17. Learned counsel for the revisionist further relied upon a judgment rendered by Madras High Court in original petition No. 113/87 A. T. Raja Madras v. Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works, Mysore as respondent. After a detailed discussion and looking into various provisions of law under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, Madras High Court in the aforesaid judgment has observed as follows :- "12. According to the petitioner, religious susceptibility of the petitioner and of the Hindus in general is affected by the use of picture of Lord Ganesh on the label used by the respondent. The petitioner has not adduced any evidence in support of his assertion. According to the petitioner, religious susceptibility of the petitioner and of the Hindus in general is affected by the use of picture of Lord Ganesh on the label used by the respondent. The petitioner has not adduced any evidence in support of his assertion. He also merely asserted that Lord Ganesh is worshipped by all Hindus in general, and the object of such reverence and worship cannot be allowed to be used as commercial Marks for enabling the user to make profits with the use of the image of the God. 13. While considering this contention, it is necessary to note the fact that the registered Marks in this case was registered in the year 1942 and that during the course of these 52 years, no other person has questioned the validity of the registration on the ground that the religious susceptibilities of the Hindus are affected by using the Marks for commercial purpose. The petitioners claim that his religious susceptibility had been injuriously affected by the use of the impugned Marks as also the pictorial representation cannot be given much credence. It is not as if the petitioner alone belongs to the class or Section who worship Lord Ganesh. Though the vast majority of the population in this country worship Lord Ganesh, none had objected to the use of the Marks for over half a century. Moreover, Hinduism is generous and tolerant, and does not easily take offence at the pictorial representation of the Gods or Goddesses who from part of the Hindu Pantheon. Respondent has produced a list of registered trade Markss containing the names of Lord Ganesh as also a list of Markss incorporating the name of Lord Krishna. 14. In the directions issued by the Central Government under S. 23 (1) of the Act, setting out a list of Markss which cannot be registered and which list includes Lord Budha, Sri Ramakrishna, Sri Sarada Devi, the Sikh Gurus, Lord Venkateshwara, and Chatrapathi Shivaji, among others, Lord Ganesh is not mentioned. The Central Government is apparently of the view that registration of a Marks containing the name or pictorial representation of Lord Ganesh is not per se objectionable." 18. Further in the present case, from the statement made in the complaint, claim of the petitioner seems to be very queer lacking in credibility so far as the hurting the religious susceptibility of Hindus are, concerned. Further in the present case, from the statement made in the complaint, claim of the petitioner seems to be very queer lacking in credibility so far as the hurting the religious susceptibility of Hindus are, concerned. During the course of argument it was pointed out that the revisionist has been using the said tradeMarks since 1942. For a period of half century no body had made any grievance against the said tradeMarks but for the respondent complainant. In a such view I am of the opinion that the allegation of the complainant does not make out any offence of hurting religious sentiments of public at large. Moreover, it is to be noted that u/S. 32 of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, it is provided that after seven years of original registration a registered trade Marks shall be taken to be a valid trade Marks in all respect unless it is obtained by fraud or is registered in contravention of Section 11 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. For a proper understanding Section 32 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act is quoted below :- "32. Registration to be conclusive as to validity after seven years- Subject to the provisions of Section 35 and Section 46, in all legal proceedings relating to a trade Marks registered in Part A of the register (including applications under Section 56), the original registration of the trade Marks shall, after the expiration of seven years from the date of such registration be taken to be valid in all respects unless it is proved - (a) that the original registration was obtained by fraud; or (b) that the trade Marks was registered in contravention of the provisions of Section 11 or offends against the provisions of that Section on the date of commencement of the proceedings; or (c) that the trade Marks was not, at the commencement of the proceedings, distinctive of the goods of the registered proprietor. 19. Thus in the present case there is nothing on record to show that Section 32 of the Act does not apply on the facts of the present case. On the contrary it was conceded by AGA that Section 32 has got full applicability on the facts of the present case. 20. Learned counsel for the revisionist further relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Civil Misc. On the contrary it was conceded by AGA that Section 32 has got full applicability on the facts of the present case. 20. Learned counsel for the revisionist further relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25640 of 1994, Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. District Judge, Meerut and others. In this case complainant Gokulesh Pathak was the respondent No. 3. After a detailed discussion and after going through various rulings, this Court allowed the writ petition filed by the revisionist and had quashed the order dated 28-7-1994 passed by District Judge Meerut, by which order, First Appeal filed by the plaintiff Gokulesh Pathak being FAFO No. 304 of 1993 was allowed by IV Additional District Judge, Meerut. The aforesaid Court had allowed the interim injunction application of plaintiff Gokulesh Pathak (complainant) and had injected the present revisionists, which were the respondents in the aforesaid writ from publishing picture of Lord Ganesh on the wrapper of their Beedi. The aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition completely demolishes the prosecution case and therefore it cannot be said that any offence has been committed by the revisionists and resultantly, the complaint filed by the respondents does not make out any offence against the revisionist. 21. Learned counsel for the revisionist further relied upon ILR (Vol. XXIV) page 499 Behari Lal and others v. Ghisa Lal and others wherein Honble Justice Blair has held that cutting of a branch of a Peepal tree does not hurt the religious susceptibility of Hindus. 22. From the discussions made above I am of the opinion that the revisionist was manufacturing Beedi with the tradeMarks duly registered having picture of Lord Ganesh on its wrapper and hence it cannot be said that they have committed any offence. They have got many judgments in their favour, which have been referred to above and once they are acting in accordance with law they cannot be anointed with any offence. 23. In view of what I have said above, this revision is allowed. The impugned summoning order dated 16-6-1993 passed by Judicial Magistrate I, Meerut, in Complaint Case No. 32/9 of 92 is hereby set aside and the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 32/9 of 92 Gokalesh Pathak v. Manager and Director Mangalore Beedi Works u/S. 298 IPC, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, I, Meerut are hereby quashed. 24. The impugned summoning order dated 16-6-1993 passed by Judicial Magistrate I, Meerut, in Complaint Case No. 32/9 of 92 is hereby set aside and the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 32/9 of 92 Gokalesh Pathak v. Manager and Director Mangalore Beedi Works u/S. 298 IPC, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, I, Meerut are hereby quashed. 24. This revision is allowed. Petition allowed.