Pending Civil Suit in Trademark Dispute No Ground to Quash FIR When Allegations of Forgery, Fake Documents and Criminal Intimidation Disclose Cognizable Offences: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Khokhan Hawladar v. State of Punjab and Another
Date of Judgment: 16.10.2026
Citation: CRM-M-32503-2026
Bench: Justice Surya Partap Singh
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that pendency of civil litigation concerning trademark infringement does not bar criminal proceedings where the FIR independently discloses allegations of forgery, fabrication of documents and criminal intimidation. The Court observed that while trademark disputes may involve civil remedies, allegations of creating and using forged documents cannot be treated as purely civil wrongs merely because a civil suit is pending between the parties.
Reiterating the principles laid down in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court held that the inherent power to quash an FIR under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, must be exercised sparingly. Where specific allegations disclose cognizable offences, the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or examine the reliability of those allegations at the investigation stage.
Summary: The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR registered at Ludhiana under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The dispute concerned the alleged unauthorised use of the trade name and trademark “G.K.” belonging to M/s G.K. Traders. The complainant alleged that the petitioner and his associates had fabricated business documents, misused trademark-related records, attempted registration using forged documents, and created a website using the complainant’s business identity. Allegations of assault and criminal intimidation were also raised.
The petitioner contended that the controversy was essentially commercial, that a civil suit concerning trademark infringement was already pending, and that criminal proceedings had been initiated to exert pressure in the business dispute.
Rejecting these submissions, the High Court distinguished between the trademark infringement dispute and the independent allegations of criminal wrongdoing. It noted that the FIR contained specific allegations concerning forged documents, attempted misuse of GST and trademark registration records, and threats allegedly extended to the complainant.
The Court emphasised that the availability of a civil remedy does not extinguish criminal liability where the allegations disclose the ingredients of criminal offences. Applying the principles governing FIR quashing, it held that the genuineness of the allegations was a matter for investigation rather than determination in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 39 dated 11.02.2026, registered at Police Station Division No. 6, Ludhiana, holding that the specific allegations of forgery, use of fabricated documents and criminal intimidation did not warrant interference at the preliminary stage. The Court found no ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.