Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey dismissed a petition filed by Madan Lal Aggarwal challenging charges framed Trial Court for commission of offence punishable under section 420/34 RPC, 6/13 of Hoarding and Profiting Act and 3/32 of Tourist Trade Act and sections 103,104 and 106 of Trade Mark Act.
The facts of the case are that, M/s J&K Handloom and Khadi Udyog Corporation, Raghunath Bazar, Jammu of which Shri Rakesh Aggarwal S/o Late Sh. Krishan Lal Aggarwal, is the proprietor, whereas the petitioner is the real brother of Shri Rakesh Aggarwal. It is submitted that some rival shopkeepers in the vicinity where the shop of the brother of the petitioner is located, misguided and iil-advised one Shri Raj Shrivastav S/o Shri Aditya Narayan Shrivastav R/o 64/61 DD Pura Varanasi, who on the instigation of these shopkeepers, filed a false, frivolous and motivated complaint with the Police Station, City, Jammu, alleging that on 18.06.2011 he had Purchased two large blankets, two small blankets, two bedsheets and four pilow covers from the shop of the brother of the petitioner and has also alleged that the petitioner was the owner of the said shop and debited the amount from his ATM card for the purchases made by the complainant. Aftermaking the purchasing ofthe aforesaid items and after making payment, the complainant left the shop and visited an othershop in the vicinity where,the riva shopkeepers misguided him and asked him that Bania Super Market did not sell Government articles and in fact sells ordinary articles at exorbitant rates and cheats the purchasers. It is submitted that this is a general tendency amongst the shopkeepers having same nature of business in the very same vicinity to misguide the customers for obvious and apparent reasons of alluring them to buy things from their shops by criticizing the shops located in their neighborhood.
On the basis of a false and frivolous complaint filed by one Raj Srivastav on the instigation of certain business rivals, case under FIR No. 79/2011 came to be registered with Police Station City, Jammu for commission of offence under section 420 RPC, 6/13 Hoarding and Profiting Act against the petitioner and his brother.
Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey after hearing AAG Amit Gupta for the respondents observed that 12. As has been rightly observed by the learned trial court that vital evidence that has come on record during investigation against the accused-petitioner on the disclosure of the prosecution witnesses, which formed the basis for framing of the charge. At the stage of framing of charge, the court was concerned not with proof of allegation, rather it had to focus on material and form an opinion whether there was strong suspicion that, accused had committed an offence which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. Framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage final test of guilt was to be applied. In the present case, there was sufficient material on record to uphold the order framing charges of trial court.Discharge of accused is not justified. With these observations Court dismissed the petition. (JNF)