Delhi High Court
Prince Sagar vs N.C.T. Of Delhi on 22 September, 2011
Author: Suresh Kait
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2527/2007
% Judgment delivered on 22nd September,2011
PRINCE SAGAR ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Jatan Singh, Adv. with
Prashant Shai, Adv.
Versus
N.C.T. OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Ms.Ritu Gauba, APP for
State.
Mr. Neeraj Grover, Adv. for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment? NO
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO
in the Digest?
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
Crl.M.A.No.3/2011
1. Vide this application the petitioner has sought
restoration of the petition, which was dismissed for non-
prosecution vide order dated 13.12.2010. It has been
recorded in the said order that even on the second call no
one appeared for the petitioner and even on last two
consecutive dates petitioner remained unrepresented.
2. The present petition is restored subject to cost of
`15,000/- to be paid in favour of 'Welfare Fund for Children
and Destitute Women' at Nirmal Chhaya, Jail Road, Tihar,
New Delhi, within two weeks from today. Proof of the same
be placed on record.
Crl.M.C.2527/2007
1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up
for final disposal.
2. The instant petition is being filed on the basis of
compromise deed arrived at Amritsar and the same was filed
in the Court of Vivek Puri, Ld. ADJ, at Amritsar.
3. As per clause 4 of the said compromise, it is recorded
as under :
"That the plaintiff undertakes to
withdraw the above-said case and
contempt proceedings pending in this
Hon'ble Court against defendants.
This compromise is valid for case FIR
No.586/2002 u/s 63 Copy Right Act and
u/s 78/79 Trade Mark Act, PS Lahori
Gate, Delhi. The plaintiff in view of the
compromise and for this reason Prince
Sagar shall co-operate in getting the
said FIR quashed in the High Court as
per law."
4. Ld. counsel for respondent No.2 disputes the second
part of para 4, which is hand-written. However, he submits
that said hand-written portion was not in the compromise
deed when respondent No.2 put his signature and handed
over the same to the opposing counsel. The said
compromise arrived only in Suit No.(RBT) 23 of 2003/2006 in
the Court of Ld. ADJ Shri Vivek Puri, at Amritsar.
5. Respondent No.2 also disputes the signature on hand-
written portion.
6. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that ld. ADJ,
District Courts, Amritsar has recorded the settlement in
order dated 26.10.2006. In addition to that vide order dated
26.10.2006 it was recorded that the terms and conditions of
compromise Ex.C1 were correct and parties shall remain
bound by it. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed as
withdrawn as settled in the compromise.
7. Though ld. counsel for the respondent has disputed the
hand-written portion of para 4 of the compromise deed and
initial put thereon.
8. However, present petition was filed way back in 2007.
Ld. counsel for the respondent has made appearance in the
matter on 31.03.2009. He only raised objection and
disputed this fact today in the court, however, has placed
nothing on record to rebut the same.
8. Keeping in view the above settlement, which took place
between the parties, I am of the view that the aforesaid
settlement is binding in nature, therefore, I quash FIR No.586
dated 14.12.2002 under Section 63 of the Copyrights Act
and under Section 78/79 of the Trademarks Act, registered
at PS Lahori Gate and proceedings emanating therefrom.
9. Accordingly, Crl.M.C. No.2527/2007 is allowed.
10. No order as to costs.
SURESH KAIT, J
SEPTEMBER 22, 2011
Vld/RS
