Gopal Sabu Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This is a miscellaneous criminal case involving a petition for the quashment of an FIR (First Information Report) related to trademark infringement. The case involves Gopal Sabu and others versus the State of Madhya Pradesh and others, with the petitioners seeking to quash FIR No. 1347/2022 registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, for alleged infringement of the trademark 'SACHAMOTI' by the petitioners.

The background of the case includes a civil suit filed by Rajkumar Sabu, proprietor of M/s. Shiv Trading Company, against the petitioners for trademark infringement. Rajkumar Sabu claims to be the original registered owner of the 'SACHAMOTI' trademark, which is in dispute with the petitioners. The Delhi High Court has issued orders restraining the use of the trademark by the petitioners, but they have continued to sell products under the 'SACHAMOTI' brand, leading to the FIR being filed.

The petitioners argue that the FIR should be quashed because the civil suits regarding the ownership of the trademark are still pending, the mandatory provisions of Section 115(4) of the Trade Marks Act have not been complied with, and the matter is essentially a civil dispute being given a criminal angle. They rely on various judgments to support their arguments, including cases where the High Court has quashed FIRs due to legal bars or mala fide intentions.

The respondents argue that the FIR was registered after obtaining the opinion of the Trade Marks Registry, and the police officer who conducted the search and seizure was authorized to do so. They also contend that the pendency of a civil suit does not bar the registration of a criminal case, and the FIR discloses cognizable offenses committed by the petitioners.

The court, after hearing both sides and reviewing the evidence, finds no merit in the petitioners' arguments. The court notes that the opinion from the Trade Marks Authority was obtained before registering the FIR, and the search and seizure were conducted with proper authority. The court also states that the pendency of a civil suit does not oust the jurisdiction of the criminal court, and both proceedings can run independently.

The court dismisses the petition, concluding that the FIR and subsequent proceedings are valid and that there is no abuse of the legal process. The court emphasizes that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be exercised sparingly and only to prevent abuse of the court's process or to secure the ends of justice.

Case Citation: Gopal Sabu Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh : 29.07.2024:Misc Crl Case 43601 of 2024: Madhya Pradesh High Court: Binod Kumar Dwivedi: H.J.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]