Salim Khan, J.--Arif Ejaz, petitioner, filed the present writ petition against the Director General FIA, Islamabad, his two subordinates and M/s. Amrat Beverages International (Pvt.) Limited through its Chief Executive, 17-D, Block-C, Shahra-e-Faisal, Karachi. It was contended by the petitioner that Respondent No, 4 introduced the firm to petitioner to enter into a bottler's agreement with it and finally entered into an agreement with the firm through the petitioner on 22.4.2004. It was further contended that the petitioner developed his business, but it came to light that Respondent No, 4 was neither the owner of the trade mark of `AMRAT' nor it had exclusive right to the above trade mark, that the petitioner introduced his beverages with the trade mark of `AMR.AT' by dint of his hard work, that the Registrar Trade Marks at Karachi had confirmed that Respondent No, 4 was not the owner and exclusive user of the trade marks and different petitions were pending adjudication before the Registrar, Trade Marks, Karachi.
2. But the FIA Circle Peshawar, had, without any verification/ inquiry, registered a criminal case against the petitioner, vide FIR No, 2 under Sections 420/486/487/468/471/109 PPC, and arrested the petitioner and conducted raid on his firm. It was further contended that the FIA did not release the petitioner under Section 169 Cr.P.C., but later on, admitted that no criminal case existed against the petitioner. The request of the petitioner was for declaration that the registration of criminal case as aforesaid against him was illegal and without lawful authority and also for quashment of the FIR.
3. We heard the arguments of Mr. Aamir Javed, Advocate, for the petitioner as well as Mr. Muhammad Muazzam Butt, Advocate, for Respondent No, 4, and perused the available record.
4. The Bottler's Agreement between the parties shows that the trade mark of `Amrat Cola', `Amrat Lime' and `Amrat Orange' were to be used in the light of the said Agreement between the petitioner and Respondent No,
4. The Memorandum dated 30.3.2005 of the Examiner of Trade Marks authorized under Section 7(2) of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001, indicates that marked as 'A' is the true copy of pending application presented at Trade Marks Registry, Karachi in the name of Arif Ijaz, Sole Proprietor, Pakistani National, trading as M/s. Mohsin Beverages, who claimed to be the Proprietor of the Trade Marks. It was further mentioned that the Mark was under consideration and was not registered upto 30.3.2005. From the annexed Form, with reference to the request for search by Arif Ijaz, it was clarified that the Trade Mark "Amarit" was shown for M/s. National Detergen Ltd, Karachi, the Trade Mark `Amrit' was shown for M/s. Ranco Water, Faisalabad while the Trade Mark `AMARAT' was shown for M/s. Pakistan Mineral Water. It did not include the Trade Mark 'Amrat' or 'Amrat Cola', `Amrat Lime' or `Amrat Orange'.
5. Section 39 of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 (Ordinance No, XIX of 2001) provides that no infringement proceedings shall be conducted before the date, on which the Trade Mark is in fact registered. In this case, the Trade Marks in dispute between the parties have not been registered in the name of any of the two parties. The action to be taken for infringement is mentioned in Section 46 of the said Ordinance, and further action can be taken by the Collector Custom also. The provisions of Section 117 of the said Ordinance are to the effect that no suit shall be instituted in a Court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit. Such other Court, therefore, shall not have jurisdiction to deal with such suit.
6. The parties could not be able to show us that the disputed Trade Mark/Marks was/were registered in the name of either of the two parties. The FIA authorities, in the circumstances, had no power to register a case against the petitioner. The case in hand is not a case of avoiding the terms of C the agreement, rather, it is regarding use/misuse of the Trade Mark. It is not rebutted before us that the FIA authorities came to the conclusion that no criminal case existed against the petitioner. The parties may have civil rights, if any against each other, and may prove the same in the Court of competent civil jurisdiction, but no criminal case for the time being exists against the petitioner. The aggrieved party, after registration of the Trade Mark in his name, may seek his legal remedy before the Court of competent jurisdiction, if his rights are infringed.
7. In the circumstances of the present case, we have come to the conclusion that no criminal case exists and could be registered against the present petitioner. Hence, we direct Respondents Nos, 1 to 3 to take into consideration the provisions of Section 169 Cr.P.C. and the relevant Rules while dealing with the criminal case against the petitioner. The present writ petition is, therefore, disposed of accordingly.