Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- MUKTA GUPTA
Outcome
Disposed of
Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Copyright Act, 1957 ss. 63, 65
Judgment
Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP with SI ..... Respondents Shailendra Kumar Singh, PS IIarsh Vihar, Delhi. Complainant in person. CORAM: TtrON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA ORDER 06.04.2011 'Ihis is a petition filed by the Petitioncrs I(apil l)ev and Raja Arjun for quaslring of the I]IRNo. 25I12C06 under Sections 63 and 65 Copyrighr Acr, Igs7,Sections 103 and 104 lrademarksAot, 1999 and Se';tions 48214'86/34 IPC registered at PS Dilshad G'arden, Delhi on the complaint of Respondent No. 2/Complainant. In the FIR it is alleged that the Complainant is a registered owncr of tradc mark 'EMERAI,I)' since 1975 and has becn using thc samc in a. special lnanner which has also an artistic worli within tire meanilg of CRL.M.C. 910/2011 Page I o.f Signature Not Verified Signing Date:17.08.2024 17:00:37 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.
Section 2 (") of the Copyright Act. The Cornplainant/ ) Respondent No. 2 used to sell his product with its registered trademark, however, he got to know that certain persons were illegally manufbcturing and selling the sanitary products of the same design, pattcrn and finish under the trademark of EMRALD similar to the products of the Coinplainant. On the basis of the corn plaint, abovcmentioned FIR was registercd and initially Kapii Dev, Raja Arjun, Rajiv Gupta and Parminder Singh were arcayed as accused. Respondent No. 2 who is present in person and is identified by the Investigating officer, states that he has settled the matter with the Petitioner No. 1 Kapil Dev and does not want to pursue the abovementioned l'-IR and the proceedings pursuant thereto. In tenns <lf the settlernent, he was to receive an amount of Rupees t'nro lakhs out of which T20,000/- has already been paid earlier and the balance amount of {1,80,000,/- have been paid today in Court by Dernand Draft No.
4063 62 dated 24tt' Mar'ch,2011 cirawn on Jammu and Kashmir llank, Ilathinda. Thus, he has no claim left towarcls the Petitioners. The Respondent No. 2 was given cheque bearing No. 053666 datecl l't April, 20II drawn on J&K Bank, as security for payment thn'ough bank draft today in Court which Respondent No. 2 has returned to ]retitioner No. I CRL.M.C. 910/2011 Foge 2 0f 4 Kapil Dev in Court today. Learned APP on instructions from the Investigating Officer states that no charge sheet has been filed against Raja Arjun as he was not found involved in the said case. Since the parties have amicably resolved their dispute of their own free will, volition and without any coercion and in terms of the settlement the Complainant has received the amount of Rupees Two lakhs from the Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No. 2 has not been charge sheeted, no useful purpose will be served in continuance of the proceedings.
Operative part
Rather the same would create fuither acrimony in their business relations. It would be in the interest of juslice to quash the abovernentioned F'IR. and the proceedings pursuant thereto. There is no legal irnpediment in quashing thc abovemcntioned FIR because the same is essentially a civil dispute which has been resolved between the parlies. Consequently, FII{ No. 25112006 under Sections 63 and 65, Copyright Act, 1957, Sections 103 and 104'fiademarks Act, 1999 and Sections 4821486134 IPC registered at PS Dilshad Garden, Delhi and proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed. CRL.M.C. 910/2011 Parties herve signed this order sheet in acknowledgment of their statements before this Court. Petition is disposed of. Order dasti. APRIL 06,2011 VN )- w@" MUKTA GUPTA. J. Y Na/(' RJ\s:r r\sJnlF \ SdKg v4.wffifs 3i ctsO J \-z =y' f-$_l d.sc*1 a %' CRL.M.C. 910/2011 Fage 4 aJ'4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Copyright Act, 1957 — ss. 63, 65.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.