G Pavan Reddy v. K V Subba Rao

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4501 of 2017 ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in Crime No.215 of 2017 on the file of the Station House Officer, Piduguralla Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 481, 482, 464, 483, 506 IPC and Sections 78 and 79 of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. 2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been carrying on business in lime products after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authorities. He further submitted that due to business rivalry the first respondent foisted a false case against the petitioner. He also submitted that even if the allegations made in the complaint are ex facie taken to be true and correct, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter. 3.

A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is accused No.1 and the first respondent is de facto complainant in Crime No.215 of 2017. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioner has been selling white lime, paints and allied products in the name of Surya Cem, Surya Cool and Surya Colours. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has been carrying on the business in a different names.

4.

While exercising the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the complaint only. The Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the complaint at the initial stage of investigation. Whether the petitioner infringed the trade mark of the first respondent's firm or not will come to light during the course of investigation. The material placed before the Court is prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter in order to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint.

5.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in R.P.Kapoor v. State of Punjab1, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal2, V.Y.Jose v. State of Gurajat3 and Teeja Devi v. State of Rajasthan4, I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings at the threshold.

6.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar5, the Station House Officer, Piduguralla Police Station, Guntur District, is hereby directed to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 41A Cr.P.C., in Crime No.215 of 2017 so far as the petitioner/accused No.1 is concerned.

1 AIR 1960 SC 866 2 AIR 1992 SC 604 3 (2009) 3 SCC 78 4 2015 (1) ACR 564 (SC) 5 (2014) 8 SCC 273

7.

With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 16.06.2017 YS