Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
(i) CRLM.C. 836/2007 M.P.WICKRAMASINGHA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prashanto Chander Sen, Advocate
(ii)
Respondent
Through: Mr.Ravi Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI Harinder
Mr. Abhinit Das, Advocate for complainant
PANKAJ AGGARWAL Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Arora, Advocate
Through: Mr.Ravi Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI Harinder
Mr. Abhinit Das, Advocate for complainant
13.11.2013 Quashing of FIR No.345/2005 under Sections 103/104 of The
Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Section 63 of The Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 420/34 of IPC registered at P.S. Alipur, Delhi and the order of 26th October, 2006 vide which cognizance has been taken for the
Crl.M C. 836/0 7 & 2516/08 Page 1 2013:DHC:6807 aforesaid offences, was initially sought on merits. However, during the pendency of these petitions, the dispute between the parties, which is the subject matter of these two petitions, stands amicably resolved in terms of
Memorandum of Understanding of 3'' October, 2013, copy of which has been placed on record and now, on the basis of said Memorandum of
Understanding, aforesaid quashing is sought.
Learned counsel for parties submit that the above-captioned two petitions spring out of one FIR i.e. the FIR in question therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for parties, both these petitions are being heard together and by this common order, they are being disposed of.
Mr. Abhinit Das, Advocate, appears on behalf of complainant/respondent No.2 (as per amended memo of parties of 20th March, 2007) and, on instructions from Mr. Shashi Kant Bhatt, who is substituted authorized representative of respondent No.2, affirms the contents of aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding and submits that there is no grievance against petitioners in respect of FIR in question and so, the proceedings arising out of this FIR be brought to end qua petitioners.
In 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) 10 SCC 303 Apex
ORDER
0 Court has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes in cases like the instant one, by observing as under:- "However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim CrLM C. 836/0 7 & 2516/08 Page 2 have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR f it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated." Since the subject matter of FIR in question is essentially a commercial dispute, which stands mutually and amicably settled between the parties, therefore, this Court finds that continuance of the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility. Consequently, the above-captioned two petitions are allowed and the FIR No.345/2005 under Sections 103/104 of The Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Section 63 of The Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 420/34 of IPC registered at P.S. Alipur, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioners subject to cost of 20,000/- each petition to be deposited by petitioners within four weeks from today with Prime Minister 's Relief Fund and receipt thereof be placed on record within one week thereafter. The above-captioned two petitions are accordingly disposed of. 1AUR)
JUDGE NOVEMBER 13, 2013 S