A Franchise Cannot Be Built on an Unregistered Trademark: Punjab and Haryana High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail in ₹44.5 Lakh Franchise Fraud Case

Case Name: Ravinder Kumar @ Ravinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Date of Judgment: 22 July 2026

Citation: CRM-M-38670-2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused anticipatory bail after observing that the petitioner had allegedly induced the complainant to invest in a franchise business under the trade name “The Crispy Hawkers” despite not possessing a registered trademark over the said brand at the relevant time. The Court held that the trademark registration produced by the petitioner had been granted only during the pendency of the bail proceedings and, therefore, prima facie did not support his claim of possessing enforceable proprietary rights when the alleged representations were made.

The Court further held that, considering the nature of the allegations involving inducement, substantial financial transactions and the necessity of effective investigation, no case was made out for exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC (now Section 482 BNSS) to grant anticipatory bail.

Summary: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in an FIR registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code alleging cheating in connection with a franchise arrangement relating to the business operating under the name “The Crispy Hawkers.”

According to the prosecution, the complainant alleged that the petitioner induced him to enter into a franchise agreement by making false representations regarding the business and dishonestly obtained approximately ₹44.50 lakh from him.

The petitioner contended that the dispute arose purely out of contractual obligations under a franchise agreement and was therefore civil in nature. It was argued that the complainant had voluntarily entered into the agreement after understanding its terms and that a mere breach of contract, without dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, could not attract the offence of cheating.

The State and the complainant opposed the petition, submitting that custodial interrogation was necessary in view of the serious allegations of inducement involving substantial monetary transactions.

Justice Virinder Aggarwal observed that the material produced before the Court disclosed that the petitioner had allegedly been offering franchises under the trade name “The Crispy Hawkers” without possessing a registered trademark over that name at the time the franchise agreement was executed. Significantly, the trademark registration certificate relied upon by the petitioner showed that registration had been granted only on 16 July 2026, during the pendency of the present proceedings and long after the impugned transaction.

The Court held that this circumstance prima facie undermined the petitioner’s assertion that he possessed enforceable proprietary rights over the trade name when the alleged representations were made to the complainant. Without expressing any opinion on the ultimate merits of the criminal case, the Court found that the allegations, the surrounding circumstances and the requirement of effective investigation disentitled the petitioner from the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail, holding that the petitioner had failed to establish a case warranting the exercise of discretionary relief in light of the prima facie material regarding the absence of trademark rights at the relevant time and the seriousness of the allegations involving alleged franchise fraud.