Allahabad High Court
Vishal Bansal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 April, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63339
Court No. - 74
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22938 of 2024
Applicant :- Vishal Bansal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.
2. The present application has been preferred challenging the chargesheet no.34/2024 dated 12.04.2024 and summoning order dated 15.06.2024 passed in Criminal Case No.8824 of 2024 (State Vs. Rishi and others), arising out of Case Crime No.29 of 2024, under Section 63/65 of Copy Right Act, 1957 and Section 103, 104 of Trade Mark Act, 1999, Police Station Chhatta, District Agra, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.
3. Brief facts of the present case are that applicant and his son, namely, Nabhi Bansal are Directors of M/S Padamchand Bearing & Belts Pvt. Ltd., Agra having registration of the said company issued by competent authority. Opposite party no.2 who is authorized representative of NBC company, lodged FIR bearing Case Crime No.29 of 2024 alleging that applicant by way of making duplicate bearing and using name of NBC company, was selling bearings. After lodging of the FIR, inquiry was initiated and during inquiry, only statements of two witnesses who were posted in the NBC company, were recorded and after conduction of the inquiry, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet on dated 12.04.2024 against applicant for offence under Section 63/65 of Copy Right Act, 1957 and Section 103, 104 of Trade Mark Act, 1999 whereupon learned court concerned taken cognizance of offence and summoned the applicant vide order dated 15.06.2024 which impugned the present application.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was a sub-dealer and authorized stockist under the Chief Dealer M/s Soorya Vanijya & Investment Ltd., Jaipur, for selling NBC Bearings. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the NBC bearings were purchased from the authorized dealer of NBC Company, i.e. Soorya Vanijya & Investment Ltd., Rajasthan Industries Ltd., Amer Investment (Delhi) Ltd., Jaipur and India Silica Magnesite Work Limited. He further submitted that based on two employees of the complainant's company, a false and fabricated FIR has been registered against the applicant because of the business rivalry. The applicant has stopped purchasing the NBC bearings from the complainant's company, therefore, the instant FIR claims to be registered out of vengeance. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that no inspection of the place of occurrence, as alleged in the FIR, was carried out as well as no mechanical or otherwise technical expert's opinion was taken on whether the alleged recovered oil bearing was manufactured by the complainant. Learned counsel for applicant further argued that without conducting fair investigation and only relying upon the statements of two witnesses who were employees of NBC company, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against applicant whereupon without considering the said facts and without applying its judicial mind, learned court concerned taken cognizance of offence over the said chargesheet and summoned the applicant which is abuse of process of law and as such, same may be quashed.
5. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application by way of submitting that the contentions, which are sought to be raised on behalf of applicant, would relate to disputed questions of fact, and would involve appreciation of evidence. It is submitted that at the time of taking cognizance, only a prima facie case is to be seen and the court concerned is not expected to hold a mini trial.
6. After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, this Court is of the opinion that at the stage of taking cognizance/summoning, the Magistrate is only required to record a prima facie opinion, based on the material on record, and is not expected to hold a mini trial or to examine the defence of the accused. In judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of S.W. Palanitkar and Others v. State of Bihar and Another; (2002) 1 SCC 241, it was held that the test which was required to be applied was whether there is "sufficient ground for proceeding" and not whether there is "sufficient ground for conviction". In the case of Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another; (2012) 11 SCC 465, it was reiterated that the limited purpose of consideration of material at the stage of issuing process being tentative as distinguished from the actual evidence produced during trial, the test to be applied at the stage was whether the material placed before the Magistrate was "sufficient for proceeding against the accused" and not "sufficient to prove and establish the guilt". At the stage of taking cognizance, a court's primary focus is to determine if a prima facie case exists, meaning whether there is sufficient evidence to suggest that an offense has been committed, and not to delve into the merits of the case or the evidence.
7. The aforementioned legal position has also been considered in a recent decision of this Court in the judgment dated 6.5.2024 passed in Matters under Article 227 no. 3254 of 2024 (Kailash and another vs. State of U.P. and another).
8. From perusal of the material available on record in shape of narrations made in the FIR as well as statements recorded during investigation and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against applicant. All the submission made at the bar, relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
9. On aforesaid reason, the present application is devoid of merit and, hence, the same is dismissed.
10. Lastly, learned counsel for applicant submitted that liberty may be granted to applicant to surrender before the court concerned and apply for bail to which learned AGA has no objection.
11. In view of the innocuous prayer as made, if in case, applicant surrenders before the court concerned within a period of three weeks from today and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022 SCC OnLine SC 825).
12. However, it is made clear that till three weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against applicant herein in pursuance of aforesaid case.
Order Date :- 24.4.2025
Vivek Kr.
