Background of the Case:

• The case in question, KG Marketing India Vs Rashi Santosh Soni & Anr., involves a complex trademark dispute between the appellant, KG Marketing India, and the respondents, Rashi Santosh Soni and another party.
• The litigation was initiated when the appellant, KG Marketing India, filed a suit, CS (COMM) No.18/2023, asserting its rights over certain trademarks and claiming extensive use and advertising of these marks.
• The appellant sought judicial relief based on these claims, relying heavily on newspaper advertisements to establish the substantial promotion of its trademarks in the market.
• The respondents, Rashi Santosh Soni and the second respondent, filed a cross-suit, CS (COMM) No.477/2023, alleging that KG Marketing India had engaged in fraudulent practices to support its claims.
• The respondents contended that the advertisements presented by the appellant were not genuine but fabricated to deceive the court into believing that the appellant had established goodwill and extensive use of the trademarks.
• The key legal issue arose when allegations surfaced that the appellant had deliberately submitted forged documents to support its legal claims, potentially committing an offense under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which deals with filing false evidence in judicial proceedings.

Issue of the Case:

• The primary issue centered on the authenticity of the newspaper advertisements submitted by KG Marketing India as evidence of trademark promotion.
• In contrast, the respondents alleged that these documents were forged, and the appellant had filed a false Statement of Truth, which accompanied their suit.
• The question was whether submitting allegedly forged advertisements amounted to an offense under Section 340 of the CrPC, and if the court had the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against the appellant for this.

Contentions of the Parties:

Appellant's Contentions:

• KG Marketing India argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of the CrPC because the alleged forgery occurred before the legal proceedings started.
• The appellant cited various Supreme Court judgments stating that Section 340 CrPC could only be invoked for offenses committed during the judicial proceedings.

Respondents' Contentions:

• The respondents asserted that KG Marketing India had submitted forged documents to mislead the court, which amounted to a deliberate violation of judicial proceedings.
• They argued that the court had the authority to take cognizance of this offense, regardless of when the forgery occurred, and initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC.

Issues Dealt with by the Court:

• Authenticity of the Newspaper Advertisements: The court had to decide whether the advertisements were genuine or fabricated.
• Jurisdiction under Section 340 CrPC: The court had to determine whether it could initiate proceedings if the forgery occurred before the lawsuit.
• Filing of False Statement of Truth: The court needed to assess whether the appellant had filed a false Statement of Truth and the legal consequences of this action.

Reasoning and Final Decision:
After a thorough examination of the evidence and the arguments presented by both sides, the court concluded that KG Marketing India had indeed submitted forged and fabricated documents in support of its claims. The court held that the evidence clearly indicated that the appellant had fabricated newspaper advertisements to mislead the court into believing that their trademarks had been widely promoted.

The court rejected the appellant's contention that it lacked jurisdiction to act under Section 340 CrPC merely because the forgery occurred before the initiation of the legal proceedings. The court held that once forged documents were introduced into the court’s record, it had the authority to take action under Section 340 CrPC, irrespective of when the forgery occurred. The court emphasized that the filing of a false Statement of Truth, accompanied by forged documents, constituted an offense under Section 340 CrPC, which warranted the initiation of criminal proceedings against the appellant.

In addition, the court dismissed the appellant's argument that they had been compelled to file a false Statement of Truth due to a prior forgery, calling this defense "unacceptable" and lacking in merit. The court concluded that such a submission could not excuse or justify the appellant's conduct in producing false documents before the court.

Finally, the court upheld the learned Single Judge’s decision directing the Registrar General to lodge a complaint with the concerned Judicial Magistrate for the initiation of appropriate criminal proceedings against KG Marketing India under Section 340 CrPC. The court found no merit in the appellant’s appeal and accordingly dismissed it, reaffirming the principle that parties who submit false evidence or documents in judicial proceedings must face legal consequences, regardless of the timing of the offense.

Conclusion:
The court’s ruling in KG Marketing India Vs Rashi Santosh Soni & Anr. serves as a strong reminder that the sanctity of judicial proceedings must be preserved, and those who attempt to deceive the court by submitting forged documents will be held accountable under the law. The decision underscores that Section 340 CrPC applies not only to offenses committed during the proceedings but also to forged or false evidence introduced into the record, regardless of when the forgery occurred. By dismissing the appellant’s technical defense, the court sent a clear message that the filing of false Statements of Truth and fabricated documents will not be tolerated in the legal system.

Case Citation: KG Marketing India Vs Rashi Santosh: 23.08.2024: RFA(OS)(COMM) 16/2024: 2024:DHC6385:Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta, H.J.

Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539