Delhi High Court Quashes Forgery Case Filed by Anchor Health Against Colgate-Palmolive

The Delhi High Court has quashed a forgery case filed by Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. against Colgate-Palmolive Company and its directors. The case, involving allegations of forgery related to trademark registration documents, was reserved on February 28, 2024, and dismissed by Justice Amit Sharma on May 28, 2024.The legal dispute between Colgate-Palmolive and Anchor Health and Beauty Care centres around the use of red and white color combinations on toothpaste packaging. Colgate initiated multiple lawsuits against Anchor, alleging trademark infringement. In one lawsuit, Colgate presented a certificate of registration for trademark number 1223059, which Anchor claimed was forged. Anchor's complaint, filed under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alleged that Colgate fabricated the certificate of registration and its certified copy for use in legal proceedings.The magistrate had issued summons to Colgate and others after finding prima facie evidence of forgery. The complaint also implicated the Deputy Registrar of TradeMarks, accusing them of colluding with Colgate. However, the Trade Marks Registry did not deny issuing the certified copy of the registration certificate, attributing the alleged discrepancies to possible errors by the Registry rather than intentional forgery by Colgate.The court noted that the Trade Marks Registry did not deny issuing the certified copy of the registration certificate. The alleged discrepancies were attributed to possible errors by the Trade Marks Registry rather than intentional forgery by Colgate.The Court asserted, “In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was incumbent upon the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to conduct an inquiry from the office of the Trade Marks Registry to ascertain whether the alleged forgery is reflected from the records of the said department.”The Court took into account that Anchor had also filed an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before the High Court, which contained the same allegations as its complaint before the magistrate.Section 340 CrPC grants the court the power to order a preliminary inquiry into offences related to documents presented as evidence.The Court held, "an inquiry under Section 340 of the CrPC, as prayed for by Anchor, cannot be separated from the alleged forgery with respect to the documents in question. The foundational fact for initiation of prosecution for offence punishable under Section 193 of the IPC in the facts of the present case, as averred by Anchor, would be establishing the fact that the documents are forged.""In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion, as alleged by Anchor, in the same course of transaction, two separate offences have been committed and for one set of offences, complaint of Court is mandatory and therefore it is not possible to split them up. In these circumstances, the complaint with regard to other set of offences for which no complaint of Court is required cannot be sustained. The present complaint would not be maintainable and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the said complaint," the Court added.Accordingly, the Court allowed the petitions while setting aside and quashing the Metropolitan Magistrate's summoning order.Case Title: Colgate Palmolive Company & Ors v State of NCT & Anr & Connected mattersCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 663Click Here To Read Judgement

Delhi High Court Quashes Forgery Case Filed by Anchor Health Against Colgate-Palmolive

Bhavya Singh

Tags