Delhi High Court
Inder Sain Dua & Anr. vs State & Anr. on 3 July, 2018
$~24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 03rd July, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 3515/2016
INDER SAIN DUA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Petitioner no.1 in person with his
SPA, Sandeep Dua
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP for the State
with SI Ravindra Singh for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. This petition invokes the jurisdiction of this court under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) to seek
quashing of the proceedings arising out of the first information report
(FIR 29/2007) lodged by the second respondent herein with police
station Sadar Bazar involving offences allegedly committed under
Sections 63 of the Copy Rights Act, 1957, Section 103 and 104 of
Trademarks Act, 1999 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.
2. The allegations in the FIR indicate complicity of the petitioners
in the aforesaid offences. From the submissions made, it is clear that a
charge-sheet has already been submitted in the court of competent
jurisdiction and the case is at the stage of consideration for framing of
charge. The ground on which the above mentioned prayer for
quashing of the proceedings is made relates to a compromise deed
statedly entered upon by the petitioners with the second respondent
(first informant of the case) on 05.09.2016. The compromise deed
statedly executed has been filed with the petition.
3. Notice was issued to the second respondent who was served and
in response thereto he appeared through counsel on 22.08.2017.
Thereafter, the matter has remained pending. On 04.09.2017 on joint
request the matter was again adjourned. From 08.02.2018, the second
respondent has failed to appear even though a fresh notice was issued
to his counsel. Same is the position on the matter being taken up
today.
4. The settlement agreement on the basis of which the prayer is
made for the proceedings in the criminal case to be set aside vaguely
refers to some "misunderstanding" having led to the registration of the
FIR and such misunderstanding having since been "cleared" leading to
amicable resolution and settlement of the dispute. It does not clarify
as to what was the misunderstanding and why the allegations against
the petitioners in the aforementioned criminal case ought not be
pursued further.
5. A perusal of the copy of the charge-sheet (pages 31 to 44 of the
paper book) which has been submitted by the police on conclusion of
investigation in the court of Magistrate would show that the first
informant is the owner of the registered trademark in respect of certain
healthcare products (condoms). The first petitioner is described in the
case as the trader dealing in such products on the allegations about he
indulging in illicit trade in such products constituting breach of the
trademark rights and the copyright of the first informant. During a
raid by the police certain incriminating recoveries are shown to have
been effected from his possession.
6. In the given facts and circumstances, having regard to the nature
of the offences involved and the disinclination shown by the second
respondent in burying the dispute by having failed to come in response
to the notices to the court, this court is not inclined to grant the prayer
in the petition. The petition is dismissed.
7. The petitioners, however, will have the liberty to rely upon the
document described as compromise deed dated 05.09.2016 during the
proceedings in the criminal case by submissions to be made on such
basis.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 03, 2018
yg
