27-05-2025
‘Virtually no inquiry has been made': Delhi court summons Fatehabad SP over report in trademark infringement case
A Delhi court on Monday issued summons to Fatehabad Superintendent of Police (SP) Siddhant Jain over a report he filed concerning the alleged physical intimidation and harassment of a lawyer in a trademark infringement case.
'A perusal of the report filed by SP, Fatehabad reveals that it is an outcome of the total non-application of mind, abdication of his power and in total disregard to the directions passed by this court; as it is clearly evident that virtually no inquiry has been made by him,' Vinod Yadav, District Judge (Commercial Court), North-West, Rohini Courts, said on Monday.
The court also issued a show-cause notice to the station house officer (SHO) of Jakhal police station, Police Sub-Inspector Kuldeep Singh, seeking to know why a criminal contempt reference should not be made against him for wilfully letting court orders be disobeyed.
The issue concerns a trademark suit filed this year by Delhi-based Shiv Trading Co against Shiv Tobacco in Fatehabad, Haryana.
District judge Yadav granted an interim injunction on May 2 and appointed a local commissioner (LC) to visit Shiv Tobacco's site in Fatehabad.
The LC, Ayush Rathor, made the site visit on May 10. Later, he filed a complaint at Jakhal police station, alleging that while he had managed to seize goods related to the case, the defendants had knowingly obstructed him by inviting media persons, getting into a physical tussle with the plaintiff's team, intentionally locking the gates of the premises, blocking the exits later, and having the wife of the defendant abuse him and threaten to file a false case against him.
'Several other women (relatives/neighbours) at the behest of defendant, physically intervened – one of them grabbed my arm forcefully, shouted abuses, and threatened false criminal complaints if any goods were seized. These actions were clearly premeditated to create fear, obstruct justice, and prevent the lawful seizure of infringing goods,' Rathor said in his police complaint.
On May 13, the court called for a report from the SP.
On Monday, the court expressed its dissatisfaction with the report, noting that Rathor's statement had not been noted. The court also pointed out that the report did not mention who had called the media and the women at the site.
The court issued a show-cause notice and summons to be served through the Haryana director general of police.
The matter is listed next on May 31, and both the SP and SHO have been directed to remain present in court.
