Smt. Seema Gupta vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The applicants, Shashi Kant Gupta and Smt. Seema Gupta, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 223/2023 registered at Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, for offences under Sections 408 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR was lodged by Yashwardhan Agrawal, alleging that Shashi Kant Gupta, a former employee of M/s Jai Ambey Indochem Private Limited, along with his wife Seema Gupta, used the trademark 'Fuelsave' and sold their products. It was further alleged that Shashi Kant Gupta misrepresented himself as a representative of the complainant's company to M/s Premier Bars Limited and misused company data and formulas. The applicants contended that their company, Fuelsave Tech Private Limited, incorporated in 2020, deals with generic high emissivity refractory coating and has not infringed any trademark.

Held

The High Court allowed the anticipatory bail applications. The Court observed that while there might be a business rivalry and potential trademark infringement, the essential ingredients for Sections 408 (criminal breach of trust by an employee) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, were not prima facie established. The Court noted that the applicants' company, Fuelsave Tech Private Limited, was incorporated in 2020, and its product name 'Fuelsave' is similar to the objector's company's product name. However, it was not the case that the applicants were selling their product using the same trademark. The Court found that the applicants appeared to be selling their product as a generic product, high emissivity refractory coating. Furthermore, the Court noted discrepancies in the dates of the invoice from M/s Premier Bars Limited and the letter referred to by the objector, suggesting the complaint might stem from business rivalry. Consequently, the Court held that the present case was fit for granting anticipatory bail, directing the applicants' release upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with specific conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants have committed offences punishable under Sections 408 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by allegedly misusing a trademark, company data, and client information, and by misrepresenting themselves as representatives of M/s Jai Ambey Indochem Private Limited. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicants argued that their company, Fuelsave Tech Private Limited, incorporated on 23.05.2020, deals with high emissivity refractory coating, which is a generic product. They claimed they have not infringed the trademark of M/s Jai Ambey Indochem Private Limited and are dealing with their own products. They referred to an invoice from Premier Bars Limited showing an order for their product, which included their GST number. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State and the objector contended that Shashi Kant Gupta, a former employee, failed to return a laptop containing company formulas and client details. They alleged that Shashi Kant Gupta posed as a representative of M/s Jai Ambey Indochem Private Limited to M/s Premier Bars Limited, quoting higher prices. They further argued that Seema Gupta's company does not produce high emissivity refractory coating, which is a copyright product of the objector's company, and that the applicants are selling the objector's product by misrepresenting themselves as its representatives, thus making out a case for Sections 408 and 420 of the IPC.