Supreme Court Upholds High Court’s Decision, Clarifies Section 340 CrPC Application to Proceed Independently

The Supreme Court of India has upheld the Delhi High Court’s decision to dismiss criminal proceedings initiated by Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. against Colgate-Palmolive Company. The judgment stems from a dispute over allegations of forgery and fabrication of a trademark registration certificate by Colgate-Palmolive regarding the red-and-white trade dress of its dental care products.

The bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan ruled against Anchor’s petitions, citing the principle that offences arising from a single transaction cannot be split between private complaints and court-initiated proceedings. However, the Supreme Court clarified that Anchor’s application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for alleged perjury against Colgate would proceed independently.

Legal Proceedings

Anchor initiated a private complaint before the Patiala House Court in 2009, alleging forgery and fabrication under sections 34, 197, 463, 464, 465, 469, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In parallel, Anchor filed a Section 340 CrPC application in the civil suit, accusing Colgate of providing false evidence.
The Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to Colgate and its directors in 2012. However, Colgate challenged the complaint and summoning order in the Delhi High Court.
The Delhi High Court, in its judgment dated May 28, 2024, quashed the criminal complaint and summoning order, interpreting Section 195 CrPC to conclude that private complaints were not maintainable in such circumstances. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Prasad Vasudev Keni (2020), holding that when offences arise out of a single transaction and require a court’s complaint for some of them, private complaints for others are unsustainable.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed Anchor’s petitions challenging the High Court’s decision. While refusing to interfere with the quashing of the criminal complaint, the Court emphasized that the Section 340 CrPC application would not be affected and would be adjudicated independently.

Representation

Anchor was represented by Senior Advocate Maninder Singh and a team of lawyers, including Anurag Ahluwalia, Mayur Gala, and Jasdeep Singh Dhillon, among others. Colgate’s legal team included Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Siddharth Luthra, and Arvind Verma, supported by a group of experienced attorneys.

Key Implications

The ruling reinforces the principle that offences arising from a single transaction cannot be pursued through parallel legal mechanisms unless explicitly allowed by law. It also highlights the judiciary’s adherence to procedural requirements under Section 195 CrPC for criminal complaints involving court proceedings.
The decision underscores the importance of integrity in litigation and the legal scrutiny required for filing criminal complaints. While Anchor’s private complaint has been dismissed, its perjury application remains pending, leaving scope for further legal developments.