The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash concurrent orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge rejecting a criminal complaint alleging cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust by the petitioner’s brother and father in relation to a family business and trademark dispute. The Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of prior business ownership since 1989 or produce any documentary or independent oral evidence of misappropriation or forgery. It noted that the allegations, already examined by the Company Law Board and Civil Court, essentially pertained to civil and corporate disputes over management and trademarks, not criminal offences. Finding no prima facie case for summoning the accused, the High Court upheld the dismissal of the complaint and found no merit in the petition.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of proceedings — Inherent powers of High Court — Petitioner challenged dismissal of his criminal complaint and subsequent upholding of that dismissal by revisional court. Held that the High Court has inherent powers to quash proceedings if the lower courts failed to appreciate the facts and evidence, or ignored settled legal principles. (Para 1, 31)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 199, 200, 156(3) — Complaint — Dismissal for want of prima facie case — Petitioner filed complaint alleging offences under Sections 406/420/463/467/468/471/506/120-B IPC. Courts below dismissed the complaint finding no prima facie case. Held that the dismissal was justified as the allegations were not substantiated by documentary evidence or independent oral testimony, and that the dispute appeared to be civil/corporate in nature. (Para 2, 13, 14, 42, 43)
Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 406, 420, 463, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B — Cheating, Criminal Breach of Trust, Forgery — Allegations of misappropriation, removal of records, and trademark infringement. Held that the allegations were not substantiated with cogent evidence and that prior findings by the Company Law Board and Civil Court on similar issues weakened the petitioner’s claims. (Para 2, 31, 38, 41, 42)
Trade Marks Act, 1999 — Infringement and passing off — Trademark registration — Petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 2 obtained registration of trademarks “Gopal” and “Gopal Gold” in his personal name without informing the Petitioner. Held that mere obtaining a trademark registration is not a criminal offence and that to establish criminal offences like cheating or forgery, there must be evidence of fraudulent intent to cause wrongful loss, which was not proven. (Para 4, 19, 35, 36, 37)
Evidence — Documentary evidence and oral testimony — Petitioner claimed to have been running a business since 1989 but failed to produce documentary proof. Assertion that records were removed by respondents was not accepted as sufficient, as independent oral testimony or other corroborative documents were not produced. Held that in the absence of clear documentary admission or corroborative evidence, the Petitioner’s claim remained unsubstantiated. (Para 5, 16, 22, 32, 33, 39)
Company Law Board — Findings on similar allegations — Petitioner made similar allegations of removal of bank accounts and statutory records, and siphoning of funds in a Company Petition. The Company Law Board had rejected interim prayers and a Chartered Accountant appointed by the Board found no adverse findings against Respondent No. 2. Held that these prior findings seriously undermined the Petitioner’s present allegations of criminal misappropriation and forgery. (Para 26, 41)
Nature of dispute — Civil vs. Criminal — Held that the material on record suggested that the allegations were more in the nature of a civil/corporate dispute concerning company management, trademark ownership, and accounting, rather than a clear case warranting summoning of accused for serious criminal offences. (Para 42)
Shri Vinay Aggarwal v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors., decided on : 10-11-2025