K.A.M. Anwar Ali vs Janab Mohammad Noorullah Saheb

K.M. Natarajan, J.—The accused in C.C. No. 2027 of 1984 on the file of the Third Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras has

preferred this petition under S. 482 Crl.P.C., to quash the proceedings. It is seen from the allegation in the complaint that the respondent herein

who it the sole proprietor of M/s. Spade Clover Beedi Factory used to entrust the work of manufacture of beedi to the petitioner and other

contractors on contract basis, supplying his own label and tobacco and as per the oral agreement the petitioner herein should manufacture and

send quality beedi duty rolled up and fixed with respondent''s labels to Madras through lorry. The quality of the besides supplied by the petitioner

had been deteriorating for about four or five months and he had been supplying only substandard beedies. In respect of that the respondent had

been receiving complaints from the parties. Further, it is alleged that the petitioner herein has no right to use the label belonging to the respondent

and sell the beedies in open market. But in contravention of the same, he has been doing it and hence he has contravened the Trade Marks right

and infringed the same which is an illegal and unlawful act. It is also further alleged that the petitioner has counterfeited the respondent''s property

mark used by him in the manufacture and sale of beedies under the Trade Mark ""Spade Clover Beedies"" and has been supplying and selling them

to the wholesale and retail dealers of the respondent at Thambu Chetty Street, Madras 1. Hence, the allegation against the petitioner is that he has

committed an offence punishable under S. 420 and 463, I.P.C.

The averment in petition is that it was only the petitioner, even according to the allegation in the complaint, who was manufacturing the beedi. It

is further alleged that there is no ingredients in the complaint to make out a case for the offence under Ss. 420 and 483, I.P.C., and it is only a case

of civil nature.

After hearing the arguments of the Learned Counsel on either side and after going through the records, I find that in respect of the same matter,

the respondent herein has filed a civil suit in C.S. No. 495 of 1984 on the file of this Court for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the

petitioner from manufacturing, using, printing and exhibiting and sale of beedies deceptively similar to that of the respondent''s ""Spade Clover

Beedies"" and also for a direction to the petitioner herein to return the beedies supplied to him or their value and also to render true and proper

accounts of profits made by hint, to return the infringing labels and makes for destruction and for costs. He has also obtained interim injunction. On

going through the complaint, I find that it is nothing but a civil liability as in respect of infringement of the Trade Mark Right, the respondent has

rightly instituted a civil suit and obtained injunction. If the petitioner had acted contrary to the oral agreement and manufactured substandard quality

of beedies and sold them to others, it cannot be said that he has committed criminal offences punishable under S. 420 and 483 I.P.C., The proper

remedy is only to sue him in a civil court for infringement of his Trade Mark rights and also for acting contrary to oral agreement in not returning the

goods and selling to others. I do not find any material from the allegations that for the contravention committed by the respondent, ho would be

liable for the offences under S. 420 and 483 I.P.C. I am of the view that the dispute is only civil in nature and it has to be agitated before the Civil

Court which is the competent forum. The mere fact that the respondent manufactured substandard beedies and did not return the labels and

manufactured beedies and that he sold the same to other wholesalers or retailers will not establish that the respondent has committed offence

punishable under S. 420 and 483 I.P.C.

It is needless to stay that the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Trilok Singh v. Satya Rao AIR 1979 S.C. 851, and this Court in

Subramaniam M.N. v. S. Pasupathy 1981 L.W. (Crl.) 251, Ramakrishnan v. Dhanasekaran 1981 L.W. (Crl.) 178 : 1981 2 M.L.J. (Crl) 505 and

Ratnakumar Arye v. State of Tamil Nadu 1984 T.L.N.J. 377, have held that if the dispute is essentially of a civil nature, the parties should not be

allowed to agitate the same in the criminal forum and they should not be encouraged to resort to criminal forum. Hence, I am of the view that the

proceedings against the petitioner herein in C.C. No. 2027 of 1984 which it essentially of a civil nature have to be quashed. Accordingly the

proceedings are quashed and the petition is allowed.