KHAZA SHAKIRODDIN JAVSODDIN INAMDARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:19653-DB
                                                                           appln-77-2025.odt
                                                   (1)


                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 77 OF 2025

                Khaza Shakiroddin Javsoddin Inamdar,
                Age: 24 years, Occu. Business,
                R/o. Near Aayesha Masjid, Sayeednagar,
                Dist. Nanded.                                     ..Applicant

                        VERSUS

                1)      The State of Maharashtra
                        Through Police Inspector Bhokar,
                        Tal. Bhokar, Dist. Nanded.

                2)      Subhash Rajaram Bari,
                        Age: 61 years, Occu: Private Service,
                        R/o. Vyankatesh Nagar,
                        Harivitthal Nagar Road, Jalgaon,
                        Tal. and Dist. Jalgaon.                     ..Respondents
                                                     …
                                 Mr. A.R. Dhore, Advocate for Applicant.
                               Mr. S.N. Kendre, APP for Respondent/State.
                               Mr. U.S. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                                     ...
                                                 CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                        RESERVED ON : APRIL 20, 2026
                                   PRONOUNCED ON : APRIL 30, 2026


                FINAL ORDER :-

                1.            The applicant seeks quashment of FIR No.448 of 2021

                dated 29.11.2021 registered with Bhokar Police Station, District

                Nanded for offences punishable under Section 420, 465 of Indian

                Penal Code and Sections 51, 52 of Copy Right Act, 1957 and

                consequential proceeding in R.C.C. No.65 of 2022 pending with

                Judicial Magistrate First Class at Bhokar, District Nanded for offences
                                                            appln-77-2025.odt
                                   (2)


punishable under Sections 420, 465 and 482 of Indian Penal Code

and Sections 103, 104 of Trade Marks Act, 1999.

2.          The investigation was set in motion on the basis of

information given by respondent no.2 alleging that he is working as

sales manager with V.H. Patil and Company, which is engaged in

manufacturing and processing ‘Suryachhap Tota’. He received

information that duplicate product is being marketed at Bhokar. On

28.11.2021, he arrived at Bhokar and met with Mr. Babulal Agrawal,

who is distributor of company. Mr. Babulal informed him that one

Shakir Inamdar (present applicant) is engaged in selling duplicate

goods in the name of their brand. Mr. Babulal took him to

Sayeednagar area near water tank, where a person was found selling

duplicate tobacco pouches. On seeing respondent no.2 and Babulal,

said person fled away leaving two plastic bags containing tobacco

pouches. Respondent no.2 and Babulal took goods in their possession

and called police at spot. They took plastic bags to police station. The

police received possession of bags in presence of panchas. A

panchnama was drawn.

3.          Eventually, FIR came to be registered against applicant

for offences punishable under Section 51 and 52 of Copyright Act,

1957 and Sections 420 and 465 of Indian Penal Code. On completion

of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed in Court of Judicial

Magistrate First Class at Bhokar for offence punishable under Sections
                                                            appln-77-2025.odt
                                    (3)


103, 104 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 420, 465 and 482 of

Indian Penal Code.

4.             Mr. A.R. Dhore, learned advocate appearing for applicant

would submit that initially offence was registered under Copyright

Act. Subsequently, on completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed

for offences under Trade Marks Act and Indian Penal Code. The

Section 115 of Trade Marks Act prescribes procedure for taking

cognizance of certain offences and powers of police officer for search

and seizure. Although sub-section (3) of Section 115 prescribes that

offence under section 103 to 105 are cognizable, Sub-section (4) of

Section 115 prescribes that any police officer not below the rank of

Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent, on his satisfaction

regarding commission of offence under Section 103 to 105 may

search and seize incriminating material involved in commission of

offence and needs to be produce before Judicial Magistrate as soon as

practicable. Even, before making search or seizure, opinion of

Registrar on facts involved in offence relating to trade mark needs to

be obtained.

5.             By inviting attention of this Court to material in charge

sheet, Mr. Dhore would submit that in present case, investigation is

carried out by Mr. Anil Kamble, who is Police Sub Inspector at Bhokar.

However, there is nothing on record to show that opinion of Registrar

was obtained as mandate under sub-section (4) of Section 115 of
                                                            appln-77-2025.odt
                                     (4)


Trade Marks Act, 1999. In aforesaid background, investigation and

charge sheet is not worthy cognizance. The entire proceeding is liable

to be quashed and set aside in exercise of inherent powers. In support

of his contention, he relies upon observations of Division Bench of this

Court in case of Anant Tukaram Teke Vs. State of Maharashtra and

Others reported in 2019 All M.R. (Cri.) 1327 and another judgment in

case of Shrenik Shantilal Dhadiwal Vs. State of Maharashtra and

Others reported in 2018 (6) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 288.

6.           Per contra, Mr. S.N. Kendre, learned APP and Mr. Ujwal

Patil, learned advocate appearing for respondent no.2 submits that

apart from offences under Trade Marks Act, charge sheet is filed for

offences under section 420, 465 and 482 of Indian Penal Code.

Therefore, there is no reason to exercise inherent powers or entertain

present application for quashing of FIR and proceeding. There is

sufficient material to relegate applicant for trial.

7.           Having considered submissions advanced by learned

advocates appearing for respective parties and on consideration of

averments in FIR and material in charge sheet, it is discernible that

respondent no.2, who is sales manager of tobacco company lodged

FIR. In nutshell, alleging that applicant/accused was found selling

duplicate goods with brand name of his company.          He ran away

leaving behind goods on the spot. From contents of FIR, it is

discernible that informant's company holds registered trade mark in
                                                                appln-77-2025.odt
                                     (5)


particular name. Pertinently, goods were not seized from the spot, but

informant along with his companion had been to police station, where

panchnama is drawn. Except statement of informant, who is

employee/marketing officer of tobacco company and their authorized

dealer, there is nothing to show that applicant/accused was found

selling goods at spot. The property seizure panchnama is drawn under

Section 156 of Criminal Procedure Code at police station. The spot

panchnama shows that nothing was recovered from spot. There is no

opinion of Registrar on facts involved in offence relating to trade

mark. Admittedly, investigation is carried by officer of the rank of

Police Sub Inspector and not a higher officer like Deputy

Superintendent of Police.      At this stage, it is apposite to refer to

Section 115 of Trade Marks Act, which reads thus :

      “115. Cognizance of certain offences and the powers of police
      officer for search and seizure. - (1) No Court shall take
      cognizance of an offence under section 107 or section 108 or
      section 109 except on complaint in writing made by the
      Registrar or any officer authorised by him in writing :
      Provided that in relation to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of
      section 107, a Court shall take cognizance of an offence on the
      basis of a certificate issued by the Registrar to the effect that a
      registered trade mark has been represented as registered in
      respect of any goods or services in respect of which it is not in
      fact registered.
      (2) No Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or
      Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try an offence under
      this Act.
      (3) The offences under section 103 or section 104 or section
      105 shall be cognizable.
      (4) Any police officer not below the rank of Deputy
      Superintendent of Police or equivalent, may, if he is satisfied
      that any of the offences referred to in sub-section (3) has been,
                                                               appln-77-2025.odt
                                    (6)

      is being, or is likely to be, committed, search and seize without
      warrant the goods, die, block, machine, plate, other instruments
      or things involved in committing the offence, wherever found,
      and all the articles so seized shall, as soon as practicable, be
      produced before a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or
      Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be:
      Provided that the police officer, before making any search and
      seizure, shall obtain the opinion of the Registrar on facts
      involved in the offence relating to trade mark and shall abide by
      the opinion so obtained.
      (5) Any person having an interest in any article seized under
      sub- section (4), may, within fifteen days of such seizure, make
      an application to the Judicial Magistrate of the first class or
      Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, for such article
      being restored to him and the Magistrate, after hearing the
      applicant and the prosecution, shall make such order on the
      application as he may deem fit.”

8.          The careful analysis of Section 115, it can be observed

that Sub-section (3) contemplates that offence under Section 103 to

105 are cognizable. Procedure for search and seizure is contemplated

under sub-section (4), which requires that police officer, before

making search and seizure shall obtain opinion of Registrar on facts

involved in offence relating to trade mark. Apart from that, opinion as

to commission of offence must be formed by police officer not below

the rank of Deputy Superintendent of police or equivalent, and he

shall seize articles and produce it before Judicial Magistrate as soon

as practicable. In present case, procedure contemplated under Section

115, sub-section (3) and (4) has not been followed. At least there is

nothing in charge sheet to demonstrate compliance.
                                                                appln-77-2025.odt
                                     (7)


9.           Mr. A.R. Dhore, learned advocate appearing for applicant

has rightly relied upon observations of this Court in case of Shrenik

Shantilal Dhadiwal (supra), particularly para 11 which reads thus :

      “11.     On perusal of papers of investigation it appears in the
      present matter that the investigation was carried by Assistant
      Police Inspector, Local Crime Branch, Ahmednagar. Furthermore,
      no opinion of the Registrar is taken before carrying the
      investigation. At the initial stage matter requires to be examined
      by the expert i.e, the Registrar. Therefore, the investigating
      officer has to act upon the opinion given by the Registrar. Herein
      the present case no such opinion of the Registrar was taken by
      the investigating officer, nor the alleged offence is investigated
      by the officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of
      Police. So the above two facts are in contravention of provisions
      of Section 115 sub-clause 4 and it's proviso clause. So basically
      the investigating officer was not authorized to carry the
      investigation and due to such irregularity committed by the
      investigating officer he was not authorized to investigate the
      matter and file the charge-sheet.”


10.          This Court finds that aforesaid observations squarely

applies in facts of case. In that view of matter, this Court holds that

investigation carried out by Police Sub Inspector for offence under

Trade Marks Act was without authority.

11.          Although charge is for offence punishable under section

420, 465, 482 of Indian Penal Code particularly in deference to

allegations emerging from rights under Trade Marks Act, this Court

finds that none of offences can be attributed against applicant. There

is nothing on record to show that applicant had actually sold goods to

anyone or he himself was responsible for manufacturing duplicate

goods. The charge sheet contains merely two police statements. Both
                                                            appln-77-2025.odt
                                   (8)


statements are of employees of the company. No offence can be made

out from these statements particularly when investigation was done

by incompetent officer.

12.          In result, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause

(B-1) and (C).




                                         (S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)




Mujaheed//