Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:39421-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1960 of 2023 Smt. Seema Gupta W/o Shashikant Gupta Aged About 30 Years R/o F/71, Rajdhani Vihar Colony, Saddu, Raipur (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Sub-Inspector, Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Shri Yashwardhan Agrawal S/o Shri Nirmal Kumar Agrawal Aged About 40 Years R/o 33, M/s Jai Ambey Indochem Private Limited, Shala Marg Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) CRMP No. 2030 of 2023 Shashi Kant Gupta S/o Jawahar Lal Gupta Aged About 40 Years R/o F/71, Rajdhani Vihar Colony, Saddu, Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Sub-Inspector, Police Station- Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Shri Yashwardhan Agrawal S/o Shri Nirmal Kumar Agrawal Aged About 40 Years R/o 33, M/s Jai Ambey Indochem Private Limited, Shala Marg Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Respondent(s) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.08.08 10:52:31 +0530 2 For Petitioner For Respondent/State For Respondent No. 2 : : : Mr. Abhijeet Mishra and Mr. Akhil Kumar Samantray, Advocates. Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 07.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Abhijeet Mishra and Mr. Akhil Kumar Samantray, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 1/State and Mr. D.K. Gwalre, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “i. The Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records of the case including the case diary from the concerned Police Station at Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh for the perusal of the case; ii. The Hon’ble High Court further be pleased to invoke its inherent jurisdiction vested with it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and quash the impugned First Information Report No. 0223 of 2023 dated 08.08.2023 (Annexure P/1) registered under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the Sub-Inspector (OfÏce-in-Charge) posted at Police 3 Station – Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh for the offence under Section 408 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to the extent of the petitioner. iii. Any other relief, which the Hon’ble High Court deems fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted to the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in CRMP No. 1960 of 2023 submits that the petitioner, namely, Smt. Seema Gupta, is presently designated as the Director (Director Identification Number: 09793966) of the company M/s Fuelsave Tech Private Limited (for short, ‘the Company’), having CIN: U24119CT2020PTC010098 and Registration Number: 010098. The Company has its place of business in the State of Chhattisgarh with its registered address at Shop No. 7, RV Colony, Saddu, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492001. As per the Certificate of Incorporation issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India under Sections 7(2) & 8(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 18 of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014, the Company was incorporated on 23.05.2020 as a Company limited by shares. It is further submitted that as per the Memorandum of Association, the founding shareholders are Mr. Shree Kumar Ghosh and Mrs. Lakkhi Ghosh. According to the Company Master Data issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, another Director, Mr. Mayank Gupta (DIN: 09357682), was appointed on 15.10.2021, and the petitioner was appointed as Director on 01.12.2022. 4. Learned counsel further submits that post incorporation on 23.05.2020, the Company has been engaged in the business of 4 manufacturing, importing, exporting, processing, supplying, distributing, selling, buying, and marketing raw materials and organic compounds in the chemical or allied industries. On 04.05.2023, the Company filed a trademark application through Trademark Agent Harikshit & Associates, bearing Application No. 5922660, before the Controller General of Patents Design & Trade Marks, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India, seeking registration of the Wordmark "SAVEFUEL LESS BURN MORE EARN" under Class 2 of the Fourth Schedule to the Trade Marks Rules, 2002. The Company claims to have used this mark since its incorporation date, i.e., 23.05.2020, in connection with products such as paints, varnishes, lacquers, preservatives against rust and deterioration of wood, colorants, mordents, raw natural resins, and metallic powders for artistic use. 5. It is submitted that during the course of business, the petitioner came to know of the registration of FIR by respondent No. 1 (Sub- Inspector/OfÏcer-in-Charge) upon a written complaint by respondent No.2, Shri Yashwardhan Agrawal (CEO of M/s Jai Ambey Indochem Pvt. Ltd.) against her, alleging offences under Sections 408 and 420 of the IPC. The complaint alleges that the petitioner, as Director of M/s Fuelsave Tech Private Limited, deceptively used Registered Trademark No. 2953186, i.e., "Fuelsave," registered under Class 17 to the Trade Marks Act, 1999, belonging to the complainant's Company, and sold products using the disputed mark to M/s Premium Bar Limited in March 2023. The FIR further alleges that since the petitioner's husband was an employee of M/s Jai Ambey Indochem Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner and her husband conspired to establish M/s Fuelsave Tech Private Limited using 5 the trademarked name “Fuelsave,” causing financial loss to the complainant’s company. Consequently, FIR No. 0223/2023 dated 08.08.2023 was registered under Sections 408 and 420 of the IPC. 6. In CRMP No. 2030 of 2023, the petitioner, Mr. Shashi Kant Gupta, was employed as a Project Executive in the Sales & Marketing Team of the complainant’s company. He was provided with a company laptop and motorcycle. The petitioner submitted his resignation via email on 29.11.2022, with a follow-up on 17.12.2022, but received no response. On 28.04.2023, he emailed again, asserting that his salary for work done until December 2022 was unpaid. The petitioner then learned on 08.08.2023 that an FIR had been registered against him under Sections 408 and 420 of the IPC based on a complaint alleging that he colluded with his wife (the petitioner in CRMP No. 1960/2023) in misusing the registered trademark “Fuelsave” for selling products to M/s Premium Bar Limited. The FIR also alleges that the petitioner retained the company’s laptop and motorcycle post-resignation and misappropriated proprietary data including chemical formulas. This led to an accusation of using the confidential formula to launch a competing business, M/s Fuelsave Tech Private Limited. Later, Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 was added to the FIR. 7. It is submitted that the FIR was registered without any preliminary inquiry or fact-finding report. The learned counsel contends that the allegations lack the essential elements of deception and dishonest misappropriation required under Sections 408 and 420 of the IPC. Furthermore, no offence under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 has been found or registered against the petitioner’s Company. The registration of 6 FIR merely due to similarity in name, without substantiated evidence of fraud or misappropriation, is not tenable. Moreover, respondent No. 2 has already initiated rectification proceedings before the Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 15.02.2025 under Section 16(1) of the Companies Act, 2013, for alleged violation of Rule 8A(b) of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014. He further submits that a trademark approval dated 28.10.2024 has already been granted to their Company by the Senior Examiner, Trade Marks Registry, Government of India. Also, a civil suit for trademark infringement was filed by respondent No. 2 before the Commercial Court, Raipur (Commercial Case No. 078/2024). The application for injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was rejected on 22.11.2024. A Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC (M.A. No. 05/2025) before the Principal District Judge, Raipur, was also dismissed on 12.06.2025. Thus, it is submitted that respondent No. 2, after exhausting civil remedies, has lodged a criminal FIR solely out of business rivalry. Given the pendency of civil proceedings and no prima facie ingredients of criminal offence, the FIR is liable to be quashed. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 oppose the submissions of the petitioner. 9. On a specific query by this Court as to whether respondent No. 2 has filed a reply to the present petitions, learned counsel Mr. Gwalre submits that no reply has been filed despite the petitions being pending since 2023. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7 11. It is observed that the FIR was registered under Sections 408 and 420 IPC and later Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 was added. The core complaint pertains to alleged trademark violation. However, the complainant has already pursued civil remedies by filing a trademark infringement suit and an application for name rectification under the Companies Act, 2013. The learned Civil Court has rejected the injunction application as well as the subsequent appeal. Further, the petitioner’s Company has been granted a trademark registration for its product. A final investigation report (Khatma Report) has also been issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur, closing the case for want of evidence. In light of the above facts, particularly the civil nature of the dispute and the absence of prima facie criminal elements, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. 12. Resultantly, the impugned FIR bearing Crime No. 0223/2023 dated 08.08.2023 registered at Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offences under Sections 408 and 420 of the IPC and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 is hereby quashed. 13. Accordingly, both petitions are allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan