High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Foundation Facts Not Established: Delhi High Court Quashes Summons Colgate Palmolive and Others in Alleged Forgery of Trade Mark Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court has quashed the summons issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate against Colgate Palmolive Company and its directors in a case involving allegations of forgery and fabrication of trade mark certificates. Justice Amit Sharma ruled that the foundational facts necessary to establish forgery were not verified, and the complaint was deemed impermissible under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The case arose from complaints by Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. Against Colgate Palmolive Company and its associates, alleging forgery and fabrication of trade mark certificates related to the red and white color combination used by Colgate. The complaints cited violations under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Verification of Documents: Justice Amit Sharma emphasized the necessity of verifying the authenticity of the documents from the Trade Marks Registry. The court noted, “In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was incumbent upon the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to conduct an inquiry from the office of the Trade Marks Registry to ascertain whether the alleged forgery is reflected from the records of the said department.”

Forgery Allegations: The court observed that the allegations of forgery and fabrication were not substantiated by concrete evidence. It noted that both the original and duplicate trade mark certificates were issued by authorized officials of the Trade Marks Registry. “The case of Anchor that the certified copy of the certificate of registration dated 28.02.2006 issued, contrary to the advertisement published in the Trade Mark Journal, by the Deputy Registrar in collusion with Colgate would amount to forgery, is also not made out,” the court stated.

Application of Section 195 CrPC: The judgment extensively discussed the bar under Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC, which prevents the court from taking cognizance of certain offenses unless a complaint is made by the court itself. Justice Sharma highlighted, “In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion, as alleged by Anchor, in the same course of transaction, two separate offenses have been committed and for one set of offenses, complaint of Court is mandatory and therefore it is not possible to split them up.”

“The foundational fact for initiation of prosecution for offense punishable under Section 193 of the IPC in the facts of the present case, as averred by Anchor, would be establishing the fact that the documents are forged,” Justice Sharma remarked. He further noted, “Forgery of a document cannot be simply inferred, but has to be established in accordance with law.”

The Delhi High Court’s dismissal of the complaint underscores the importance of concrete evidence in cases of alleged forgery and the procedural safeguards under Section 195 of the CrPC. The judgment sends a clear message regarding the necessity of substantiating claims with verifiable evidence and adhering to legal procedures. This decision is expected to have significant implications for future cases involving similar allegations of forgery and fabrication.

Date of Decision: May 28, 2024

Colgate Palmolive Company & Ors. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Similar News