Supreme Court Dismisses Anchor’s Complaint but Ensures Perjury Allegations Against Colgate Move Forw

In a significant development in the legal battle between Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. and Colgate-Palmolive Company, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the Delhi High Court’s decision to quash Anchor’s private criminal complaint but provided crucial clarity that the Section 340 CrPC application alleging perjury will proceed independently.
Anchor has been actively pursuing justice in a dispute over alleged forgery and fabrication of a trademark registration certificate connected to Colgate’s iconic red-and-white trade dress for its dental care products. While procedural constraints prevented the continuation of the private complaint, Anchor’s allegations of perjury against Colgate remain under judicial scrutiny.

Supreme Court’s Key Observations
The bench, comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan, dismissed Anchor’s petitions against the High Court’s May 2024 judgment, which quashed the criminal complaint. The Court, however, emphasized that this decision does not impact the Section 340 CrPC application filed by Anchor in the related civil suit.
This clarification ensures that Anchor’s claims of false evidence presented by Colgate during litigation will be independently examined, a development that maintains the momentum of Anchor’s efforts to hold Colgate accountable.

Case Background
Anchor initiated the criminal complaint in 2009, alleging forgery under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and concurrently filed a Section 340 CrPC application accusing Colgate of perjury. The Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons to Colgate in 2012.
However, Colgate challenged the complaint in the Delhi High Court, which quashed it on procedural grounds, stating that certain offences, under Section 195 CrPC, require court-initiation rather than private complaints.

Ongoing Legal Battle
Anchor’s pursuit of its Section 340 CrPC application represents a critical pathway for addressing its allegations of false evidence. The Supreme Court’s explicit confirmation that this application will proceed independently provides Anchor with an opportunity to seek redress for its grievances against Colgate.

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

Implications for Legal Processes
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s balanced approach to procedural compliance and substantive justice. While the dismissal of the private complaint was based on technical grounds, Anchor’s Section 340 CrPC application continues to serve as a platform for addressing its allegations.

By ensuring the independent progress of the perjury application, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the importance of transparency and accountability in legal proceedings.