Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 898 (RAJ)

Arvind Agarwal v. State Of Rajasthan

2021-04-29

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner Arvind Agarwal seeking quashing of the FIR No.224/2018 registered at the Police Station Abu Road City, District Sirohi, for the offences under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and Section 420 of the IPC. 2. Facts relevant and essential for disposal of the misc. petition are noted herein below:- 3. Sub-Inspector Chhaganlal who was posted at the Police Station, Abu Road City, lodged a typed report to the SHO, Police Station, Abu Road City on 10.08.2018 alleging inter-alia that on 09.08.2018, one Nirmal Khatri, member of the special team constituted by the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, gave an information to him regarding irregularities in manufacture of spurious oil by the operator of a unit at Plot No. "G-131", Arbuda Industrial Area, Abu Road. It was also alleged in the report that the operator was indulged in misusing the trademarks of recognized brands and was attempting to sell the spurious oil as genuine branded product. When Chaganlal reached the spot, Shri Nirmal Khatri, met him at the spot. Two boys namely Suresh Rajput, R/o Panchala, Police Station Sanchore, and Mitthu, R/o Ram Nagar, District Gonda, Uttar Pradesh were present in the unit. They introduced themselves as employees of the present petitioner. Members of the special team and the Sub-inspector conducted search of the premises and found various packaging materials of different brands lying there. A big hall was constructed in the premises where a refinery machine was installed and oil was stored in tanks. While the search was being undertaken, a person named Arvind Agarwal came there, who on enquiry, stated that the first and the second tanks contained mustard oil, the third and the fourth tanks contained palmolein oil, the fifth and the sixth tanks contained soyabean oil. A number of tins of Balaji Sarso Oil, Balaji Soyabean Oil, Palmolein Oil and other packagings of various brands were also found there. Cartons of Dalda Ghee, gunny bags of Raj Company Tea and old empty tins with brand stickers of various companies like Fortune etc. were also found in the premises. A number of tins of Balaji Sarso Oil, Balaji Soyabean Oil, Palmolein Oil and other packagings of various brands were also found there. Cartons of Dalda Ghee, gunny bags of Raj Company Tea and old empty tins with brand stickers of various companies like Fortune etc. were also found in the premises. On enquiry, Arvind Agarwal admitted to be the person incharge of the unit and admitted that the food oils were being packed in the branded tins of different manufacturers and then they would be sold off in the market as original branded food product. The firm was existing in the name of Pradeep Kumar Sagarmal and his elder brother was the proprietor thereof. While the search was being undertaken, the DSO Sirohi, namely Sushil Kothari, the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Hiralal, and the SHO Police Station Abu Road City also reached there. Samples were collected from various oil tanks etc. The spurious packaging material, tins etc., were seized and thereafter, the Sub-Inspector proceeded to the police station and lodged the aforestated report on the basis whereof, an FIR (No.224/2018) came to be registered against the present petitioner. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of this instant misc. petition seeking quashing of the impugned FIR by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel Shri Menaria submits that ex-facie, the allegation of the prosecution agency that the petitioner was indulged in selling spurious oil is falsified from the fact that when the oils' samples were forwarded to the public analyst, a report has been received with a conclusion that the oil samples conformed to the standards prescribed in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as, "The PF Act") and its schedule. He further submits that there is no complaint whatsoever of any individual or any trademark holder that the petitioner was misusing the trademark or copyright of any other person/body incorporate by selling oil packed in their branded packages. He submits that ex-facie, the ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC are missing from the case at hand. Regarding the offences under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, learned counsel Shri Menaria submits that the said offences are non-cognizable and hence, an FIR could not have been registered for the same. He thus, urged that the instant misc. Regarding the offences under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, learned counsel Shri Menaria submits that the said offences are non-cognizable and hence, an FIR could not have been registered for the same. He thus, urged that the instant misc. petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted and the impugned FIR is fit to be quashed. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel representing the petitioner. He submits that a huge quantity of packaging materials bearing trademarks of different manufacturers were found from the premises of the petitioner. Apparently thus, the intention of the petitioner was to misuse these trademarks and to dupe the unknowing customers. Learned Public Prosecutor urged that in view of the incriminating material recovered from the spot and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation, indulgence need not be extended to the petitioner by quashing the impugned FIR at the inception. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor did not dispute the fact that when the food articles were tested by the public analyst, a report dated 10.08.2018 has been received which establishes the fact that the same conformed to the standards prescribed in the PF Act and its schedule. It is also not disputed that the offences under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, are non-cognizable. Apparently, as the food articles which were recovered from the possession of the petitioner were not found to be adulterated or spurious, the claim of the prosecuting agency that the petitioner was trying to sell them off to the unknowing consumers and was thus cheating on them is negated. Furthermore, it is also not in dispute that no statement whatsoever was recorded by the investigating agency before the registration of the FIR regarding the petitioner having cheated on anyone by selling the food articles in the manner alleged. Thus, ex-facie, ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC are not made out against the petitioner from the bare perusal of the FIR. Thus, ex-facie, ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC are not made out against the petitioner from the bare perusal of the FIR. So far as the offences under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act are concerned, it cannot be disputed that these offences are non-cognizable and furthermore, cognizance of such offences can only be taken on a complaint in writing made by the Registrar, Trademarks. Manifestly, the FIR came to be registered without any such authorization. Thus, it is a fit case warranting exercise of this Court's inherent powers so as to quash the same. 8. Accordingly, the misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned FIR No.224/2018, registered at Police Station Abu Road City, District Sirohi and all the proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the petitioner amount to the abuse of process of law and thus, the same is quashed in entirety. Stay application is also disposed of.