Vinod Gandhi & Ors. v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr

1. Thfe present petition uhder Sefetion 482 Cr.P.C. haslbeen filed by H ' II0J 1^ • • the petititoers, namely, fi&iniiiGandhi, Sh. Amit Gauba, Sh. Arvinder §Jmgh No.|^0/2011 dated 29.09.2011, %jalfetlS;ections 103/104 oT'^'TfadhmarMs Act 1999 and _. N- ^'"•^atssasBsac®^' ^ ^ Section 63 of Co,^yrigK!Ae]t^ t^f^rpg^ef^ at Police Station Economic Offences Wir^%nathe^hasis#f a Settlement Deed between petitioner no.l and respondent no.2, namely, M/s Telebrands India Private Limitedthrough its authorized representative Mr. Anil Menon on 23.03.2016.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by SI Dhan Singh. Crl.M.C. 1511/2016 2016:DHC:9013 T'

3. The factual matrix, in brief, of the present case is that respondent no. 2 is a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in manufacturing, selling and distribution of the consumer products and brand name is Telebrands. The respondent no. 2 has been doing telemarketing over a period of 12 years. Respondent no.2's name as well as its brand has been well established in the minds of customers in India and abroad. The respondent no. 2 leamt that some unknown persons/firms/compani€s7entities> imnortliern^district and other parts of a Ot?- Delhi are deceiving tffe'phblic, fraudulefftly4nd^Hishonestly inducing them to representini lM they ar%^^^|^ne produ&m%iufactured by the resporident no. 2. I I I -'Rl I ¥ 1;] Thereafter, the compMn^htkm lodged the complaint following ti i a)4 fnaU 'A s> 'ido¥X'\.. • which th^FIR in questiM^Ms^^^ against the petitioners. During settled between the accusedvpersbns^and the^^espondent>ngt[2].

4. Respondent^'D^^^^M^^^Se^©!^, submitted that the dispute between the parties'^lfas"^^^" amicably resolved. As per the settlement, the petitioners acknowledge respondent no. 2 is the registered proprietor of the trademark "NICER DICER", "FIX IT PRO" and its packaging/label comprising of unique artistic work, color scheme and trade dress up, lay out, literary work under Trademark Act, 1999 and Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioners acknowledge and agree that there seem to be deceptive similarities between trademarks and label/packaging ofproducts ofrespondent no. Crl.M.C. 1511/2016 Page2of[8] 2 and tender unconditional apology for acts of infringement. The petitioners have undertaken to support respondent no. 2 in anticounterfeiting campaigns. Respondent No.2, through its authorized signatory Anil Menon, affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out ofthe FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of Anil Menon, aphorized signatory of respondent No 2, has been recorded^in.,this=regard4n which ithas been stated that \ 1tj • f !| /7-te he has enteredife a^pnipromise on'Befialf^^^ no.2 with the them. He has further st|ed^ he if the^ |n question is quashed. ^ |

5. Inibia« Singh v. sMUMni«l> (2012) 10 5fC 303 Apex Court has'Arecognized theM^ee^'-d^^ffe^^ resolutionipf disputes in cases like / Pl'V^^fecSStei^..words, consider ! criminal proceedings^i^SuTdT^^^mod^^to abuse ofprocess of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends ofjustice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."

6. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court ma recent judgment in Narinder Singh v. State ofPunjab (2014) 6SCC

466. The relevant observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are as under:- "29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to acceptthe settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 29.[1] Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, imder Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent powerto quashthe criminal proceedings evenin those ^ cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have • settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When theparties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed,;the guiding factor in suchcases would be to secure: |(i) ends ofjustice, or (ii)to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either ofthe aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power isnot to beexercised inthose prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences arenotprivate in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working inthat capacity are not tobequashed merely on the basis ofcompromise between the victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parfres have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. Crl.M.C. 1511/2016 ^

7. The inherent powers of the High Court ought to be exercised to prevent the abuse ofprocess oflaw and to secure the ends ofjustice. Anil Menon, authorized signatory of respondent no.2 agrees to the quashing of the FIR in question without any threat or coercion or undue influence and has stated that the matter has been settled out of his own free will. As the matter has been settled and compromised amicably, so, there would be an extraordinary delay in the process of law if the legal proceqdings"'betwe®^ther^arties are carried on. So, this Court is ofth'e'cpn^'ered^opiniomlhaf thiMs a fit case to invoke the jurisdictiph under Se^tiojacMi. Gr.P.C. Tb%re%nt the abuse of process oflaw^^fi to seci^^-fll^fld^&lbstice. Vf, % n %s

8. Th|m^orationo^^^^^werUnder !§wti<|i482 Cr.P.C. IS meant to deal with the situation mSthe absence of express provision tl IMIm » of law td\secure the endg;.(|fi|u'sitidii^such as, where the process is abused or iMsused.;^ft^#femi'ito^50iti6"'^^^iijtiot befsecured; where the process Ofia^T'svUsed for unjust oniUrilawfhFobject; to avoid the causing ofharas§ment,jtSfaqi^5j|ey-so.n^|3t^ provision ofCr.P.C. ^ or to avoid the delay dfTheslegal^ro'cei^ in the delivery ofjustice. Whereas, the inherent power is not to be exercised to circumvent the express provisions of law.

9. It is settled law that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anatrai Doshi and Ors. MANU/SC/0842/2014 and in the case of Inder Singh Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal MANXJ/SC/0808/2009 Cri.M.C. 1511/2016 Page 5 of[8] f has observed thatpowers under Section 482 Cr.P.C^ must beexercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. Only when the Court comes tothe conclusion that there would be manifest injustice orthere would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings.

10. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and therefore do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on.aecdunti oif^pomprom&e-would bring about peace and would secipe enfsldfjustice, it should no\hesitate to quash them. In such caseiS,,^^pursuingf'|)rQsec^ ne,/waste of time and energy. ]^rNcpmpound^M|&^&are basicail^an^pbstmction.in entering;'into compromisel§%I^pd|tain cases, the main offence is •t. i? il rn? h II n compoundable but the connl^ted^bfeences are not. In the case ofB.S. \ MiMh • a Joshiand\pthers v. Statef&f(Hp0d^Mand another 200!3 (4) SCC 675 ?'3r,l '"YII I'.iI- li 0 // • (F'-r; the Hon'ble%ApeX''|lhuk; l)bse&eh«tM#e:^ehlthbugh the provisions of \'.s jff'Fi '\yr~ •it.-i-aesi'maftfs:-:' 0 compoundable, it ^d^hotllifiiffd^ a®^l;ike^p0wers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apext5dd?flhid down that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon'ble Apex Court justified the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were noncompoundable. '-'M 4^^- 0' <?•'Y-'''' F Section 320 Cf^i^S'-vvould^^npt appjj^^^ which are not yJ-/

11. The Courts in India are now normally taking the view that endeavour should be taken to promote conciliation and secure speedy settlement ofdisputes relating to marriage andfamily affairs such as, matrimonial disputes between the couple or/and between the wife and her in-laws. India being a vast country naturally has large number of marriedpersons resulting into high numbers ofmatrimonial disputes due to differences in temperament, life-styles, opinions, thoughts etc. between such couples, due to which majority iscoming to the Court to get redressal. In its^^ff^ "jhe Law^Commission ofIndia had f emohasized that/while dkmincr -with divmit^: emphasizedthapwhil^fftdling^j^ disputes do^cerffing thefamily, the jf. adopted ik oMinary and thaP ithshould make reasonable ffforts at settl^r0^ffb^f§0the commencemdht ofthe trial. i fi i| i^rtj I i] Further it is also the cons'titk^dpdll{mandate for speedy disposal of such disputes and to grakF^icIfjustice to the litigants. But, our % jf7% • d Courts are%lreadydPex±Bufffeh'eMdudfo:me}Me'n^ ofilarge number of ' H k A Cnsp^s hpnniJfiP.PnT<^W^ hpr.nmp.^ rlivnnanl nf cases because\fDj^;wMichHt^bec(^^ disposal of matrimonial dispuIesfcdoi^^yliP^thefmdtri^ disputes are mainly between the husband and Fie~wife^andpersonal matters are involved in such disputes, so, it requires conciliatory procedure to bring a settlement between them. Nowadays, mediation has played a very important role in settling the disputes, especially, matrimonial disputes and has yielded good results. The Court must exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to put an end to the matrimonial litigations at the earliest so that the parties can live peacefully. Crl.M.C. 1511/2016 Page7of[8]