In the Hon’ble Court of Shri Rishabh Kapoor, Ld MM,

Tis Hazari, CD, Delhi

Cr. Case No. 4208/2020

In Re:
State Versus Naresh Kadyan

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF MR. NARESH KADYAN

FOR NOT TAKING COGNIZANCE OF KALANDRA NO.
29 A, FILED BY POLICE STATION IP ESTATE & TO
TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE CONCERNED IO WITH
DEPUTY CEO (NZ) SECRETARY TO CHAIRMAN OF
KVIC UNDER SECTION 120-B, 182, 219 AND 420 OF
IPC
NDH:06.11.2020
DD number 29 A /2020
U/S : KALANDRA, U/s 182 IPC
PS: IP ESTATE

Most respectfully Showeth:

1. That the above-mentioned Kalandra is under consideration

before the Hon’ble Court and listed on 6th, November 2020.

2. That the present kalandra has filed by the police is based on

the complaint filed by the Naresh Kadyan, being a part of

Community Policing and stated that KVIC Rajghat and

Maharashtra are trading in possession of ivory and whale

bone, which is not permissible in law as per section 49-

B(1)(a) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and the violation

of the section 188, 120 B, 420 IPC read with section

2,9,39,40,63,64 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.

3. That the Respondent is retired as Commissioner, Bharat

Scouts and Guides, Haryana, in past, served as Technical

Supervisor (Leather), Haryana, Khadi and Village Industries

Board, being Fighter by sprit, Activist by mission, Jat by

birth, Cobbler by profession, Humanitarian by choice,

 Gandhian by vision and action as habitually Khadi worriers:

Work is worship as community policing and law abiding

person and on the other hand, had been Duty Magistrate

during prohibition policy in Haryana along with District Khadi

and Village Industries officer.

Retired Member, State Committee for Slaughter House,

Department of Urban and local bodies (Government of

Haryana), decorated with certificate of Master Trainer from

AWBI, volunteer of WCCB, nominee of CPCSEA

(Government of India), presently serving as a part of

community policing as Member, IUCN Commission on

Education and Communication, representing OIPA in India

duly recognized by United Nations, compiled two books on

legislations on flora and fauna in Hindi. The Letter of WCCB

is annexed herewith as Annexure R/2.

4. That the complaint made by Respondent was based on the

Trade Mark Application No. 3863691, wherein the KVIC has

applied in the class 20 for the goods namely:-

“Furniture, mirrors, picture frames; goods (not included in

other classes) of wood, cork, reed, cane, wicker, horn, bone,
ivory, whalebone, shell, amber, mother- of-pearl,
meerschaum and substitutes for all these materials, or of
plastics”
It would be pertinent to mention here that KVIC obtained
WORDMARK: KHADI, along with logo Khadi India Hindi &
English, WORDMARK SARVODAYA as well, whereas
tobacco, meat, alcohol covered under the Negative list of the
KVIC, including activities ban be law as Ivory.
5. That the affidavit has also been filed by the KVIC Along with
this application of Trademark by Mr. Jawahar Director
 (Marketing) of Khadi and Village Industries Commission,
Mumbai. This affidavit stated as follows:
“2. I say and submit that the applicant company is engaged
in the business of Manufacturer/merchant/services of the
applied goods/services(hereinafter to as the said goods/
Services) included in classes-
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,14,16,18,20,221,22,23,24,25,26,27,29,30,32,
34,35.38,42. I say and submit that the applicant company is
registered proprietor of the trademark KHADI bearing no.
2851542 in class 24. The said trademark is valid till today.
Hence this affidavit shown that the KVIC is in the trade and

in business of IVORY & WHALE BONE with other business.

The copy of trade mark application along with ‘TM –A’ and

affidavit is annexed herewith as Annexure R/1.(Colly.)

6. That it is pertinent to mention here that this fact has came in

to the knowledge of Naresh Kadyan that KVIC doing of the

business of IVORY & WHALE BONE, which is illegal in

India and punishable under the law and it was the duty of

Respondent as the Volunteer Member of Wildlife Crime

Control Bureau as well as the citizen of India to perform his

fundamental duties, as provided by our Constitution under

Article 51A(g) to take the action against the act of KVIC for

their illegal work, intimating Enforcement Agencies, hence

the Respondent, submitted his complaint to the Police and

other authorities to take the appropriate action against the

KVIC and their officers.

7. That said complaint given by the Respondent in good faith

as per the Affidavit and Trade Mark application filed by the

KVIC and he has no motive or any bad intention to harm the

KVIC officers and the Complaint of the Respondent was

 based on the Public Documents and the Delhi police how

can file the present Kalandra u/s 182 of IPC against the

Respondent on public documents, which are available on the

website of Trade Mark registry.

8. That the KVIC uploaded on their official website, related to

the list of trademarks but concealed facts as KVIC obtained

trademarks under class 33 as well, vide application No.

4285650.

9. That the feelings of Respondent, badly hurted due to

unlawful & false declaration through affidavit by the KVIC,

submitted with the Trade Marks Authorities. In fact against

the Gandhian Ideology & philosophy.

10. That the Respondent is the well wishers of the KVIC and

does not want to harm any officers of KVIC and does not

want to take any benefit by making the false police complaint

against the KVIC, hence the present Kalandra is liable to be

rejected by the Hon’ble Court.

11. That the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau asked the actual

position to the KVIC, whereas KVIC replied to WCCB,

concealing affidavit as submitted before the Trade Mark

Authorities, to get trademarks under class 20.

12. That as per the section 49 B(1)(a) of the Wild Life(Protection

) Act 1972 the dealing in trophies, animal articles etc.,

derived from scheduled animal is banned and punishable

under law, the Section 49 B in verbatim as:-

Section 49B. “Section 49 B Prohibition of dealings in trophies,
animal articles, etc., derived from scheduled animals.
1
[49B. Prohibition of dealings in trophies, animal articles, etc.,
derived from scheduled animals.-- (1) Subject to the other
provisions of this Section, on and after the specified date, no
person shall—

(a) commence or carry on the business as--

(i) a manufacturer of, or dealer in, scheduled animal articles; or

2
[ia) a dealer in ivory imported into India or articles made
therefrom or a manufacturer of such articles; or]

(ii) a taxidermist with respect to any scheduled animals or any

parts of such animals; or

(iii) a dealer in trophy or uncured trophy derived from any

scheduled animal; or

(iv) a dealer in any captive animals being scheduled animals; or

(v) a dealer in meat derived from any scheduled animal; or

(b) cook or serve meat derived from any scheduled animal in any
eating-house.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, "eating-

house" has the same meaning as in the Explanation below sub-
section (1) of Section 44.

(2) Subject to the other provisions of this section, no licence

granted or renewed under Section 44 before the specified date
shall entitle the holder thereof or any other person to commence
or carry on the business referred to in clause (a) of sub-section
(1) of this section or the occupation referred to in clause (b) of
that sub-section after such date.”
13. That as per the above section the Respondent has taken the

action and made the complaint against the officers of KVIC

adopting legal measures.

14. That the KVIC has already has taken the trade mark in

various classes, which is shown in negative list of KVIC.

15. That as per the knowledge of Respondent that the KVIC did

not file any rectification application in the alleged trade mark

till date to the Trade Mark Registry; hence it shown that the

KVIC has intentionally filed the said trade mark application.

16. That the Deputy CEO (NZ) cum Secretary to Chairman of

KVIC submitted false counter communications, concealing

actual facts, misusing power & authorities, vested in post, to

the Police & IO of the case has filed this Kalandra with

melafide intention on false grounds to malign the reputation

of the Respondent as IO leak the information to the media

without giving any competency, information to the

Respondent about the said complaint, neither Respondent

was asked to join Investigation.

17. That the Respondent did not produce any false evidence in

his complaint, he has given only documents, which were

filed by KVIC in the Trade Mark Registry, hence the

Kalandra is not made out u/s 195 of Cr. P.C and liable to be

rejected on this ground only.

18. That every citizen of India is duty bound by law and the law

is equal for every citizen of India and the KVIC has filed false

affidavit before the Trade Mark Registry and which is

punishable u/s 103 to 104 of Trade Mark Act, 1999.

19. That the KVIC was stated in the Kalandra that they were

taken the Trade Mark under Class 20 for protecting their

Trade Mark but the KVIC could use the language “proposed

to be used” in the Trade Mark Application but the KVIC has

filed the Affidavit wrongly with the Trade Mark Application.

20. That now it is admitted facts that the KVIC has filed the false

affidavit before the trade mark registry, which is punishable

u/s 103 to 104 of trade mark act 1999 read with other

relevant laws of the land.

21. That it would be pertinent to mention here that KVIC

obtained trademarks for the activities covered under

Negative list, preventing the misuse of KVIC brand, but KVIC

adopted wrong & unlawful mechanism, submitting false

affidavits, if KVIC wants to protect their Brand then they may

recommend Central Govt. to include KVIC brand under the

Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act,

1950. The Respondent offer his tireless services to the KVIC

for this cause without any personal gain & profit, in the

interest of Gandhian values being worriers.

22. That Respondent did not hide any information from the

concerned portal as the complaint of the Respondent is still

available on LG listening portal along with all the evidences

attached with the grievances, submitted on the portal, RTI

received in January 2020 by Respondent is still on LG listing

portal, but the concerned IO did not produce this information

before the Hon’ble Court.

23. That the IO has allegedly making allegation against the

Respondent that his conduct was not good, during his

service time, which is totally wrong as all the charges were

baseless and only slapped on the Respondent to harass him

and all the charges has been dropped and one charge has

been quashed by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court.

It is pertinent to mention here that the this baseless charges

has been included in the Kalandra, which shows that the IO

has malafide intention and this Kalandra has also been filed

with malafide intention to pressurize the Respondent to take

the other complaint return back filed against KVIC on

misusing of the premises of Gandhi Samiriti & Darshan

Samiti at Rajghat, New Delhi, whereas during the services

with KVIB Haryana of Respondent, appreciation has been

issued by the District Administration at Gurgaon, another

one was issued by the District Administration at Faridabad

along with services tendered as In-charge of Consignment

Agency at Faridabad, keeping in view tireless services. The

Respondent moved voluntarily retirement under protest, at

the time of promotion, before 5 years of his retirement,

whereas PETA India along with Wildlife Trust of India also

appreciated the services towards animals.

24. That the Respondent has filed a Private complaint CRM No.

342/2020 before the Court of Ld Illaqua Magistrate, Jhajjar,

Haryana u/s 156(3) to lodge FIR u/s 103 to 105 of Trade

Mark Act read with 39, 63 of the Wild Life Protection Act

1972, which was dismissed on 22.10.2020 and treated as

 complaint and listed on 02.02.2021 for further proceedings

against the KVIC & Trade mark registry.

25. That the IO has filed this Kalandra on false ground and liable

to be punished WITH DEPUTY CEO (NZ) SECRETARY TO

CHAIRMAN OF KVIC UNDER SECTION 120-B, 182, 219

AND 420 OF IPC READ WITH 103, 104, TRADE MARK

ACT, 1999 as he did not do his duty as per law.

Prayer:

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court may

not to take the cognizance on the Kalandra filed by the IO, Police

Station IP Estate, Delhi and take the appropriate action against the

concerned IO WITH DEPUTY CEO (NZ) SECRETARY TO

CHAIRMAN OF KVIC UNDER SECTION 120-B, 182, 219 AND 420

OF IPC for not doing his duty as per law, performing his

fundamental duties as well, in the interest of justice OR

Pass any other or further order in the interest of justice.

Delhi (Rajender Yadav) Adv.,

03.11.2020 Counsel for Respondent