Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1275 (DEL)

Puneet Kumar Grover v. State

2007-07-03

REVA KHETRAPAL

body2007
JUDGMENT : Reva Khetrapal, J. By this writ petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 231/2006 under Sections 103/104 Trade Mark Act and Section 66 of the Copyright Act, Police Station Karol Bagh, registered against the Petitioner. 2. It is alleged in the First Information Report that the Respondent No. 2, M/s. Ask Automotive (P) Ltd., which is the complainant company, is the proprietor and owner of the trade mark "ASK" vide registration No. 506591 in Class 12 and also copyright in the artistic work, style and design in the logo and mark "ASK" written in a unique style and design on the components manufactured by the company, being brake shoes and other automotive parts. After obtaining the legal permission from the concerned Court of law for conducting raids against unknown accused persons/firms/companies, etc. involved in the manufacturing and selling of items with deceptively similar trade mark manufactured by the Respondent No. 2/complainant company, the Respondent No. 2/complainant company conducted a raid on 17.05.2006 at the shop/premises of the Petitioner, who is running his shop in the name and style of M/s. P.K. Motorcycles at 1539/29, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. It is alleged that 28 sets of brake shoes with deceptively similar trade mark manufactured by the Respondent No. 2/complainant company were recovered from the shop of the Petitioner. On the complaint of the Respondent No. 2, case FIR No. 231/2006 was registered by the Police of Police Station Karol Bagh under Sections 103/104 Trade Mark Act and Section 66 of the Copyright Act against the Petitioner, copy whereof is enclosed as Annexure P-1 to the petition. The Petitioner was sent to judicial custody and was granted bail on 24.05.2006 by the concerned Court of law. On interrogation, he disclosed that the counterfeited recovered goods were purchased from one Pawan and he used to purchase the original/genuine goods from one Bhasin who was authorized dealer of "ASK". The Petitioner further disclosed that Pawan also supplied counterfeited brake shoes to one Rajesh Kwatra, whose shop was located at New Satya Motorcycles, 1559/30, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Hence at the instance of the present Petitioner, another raid was conducted at New Satya Motorcycles, 1559/30, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The Petitioner further disclosed that Pawan also supplied counterfeited brake shoes to one Rajesh Kwatra, whose shop was located at New Satya Motorcycles, 1559/30, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Hence at the instance of the present Petitioner, another raid was conducted at New Satya Motorcycles, 1559/30, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. During the search on the assertion and identification of the complainant Rakesh Gosain, a total of 203 packet each containing 2 pieces of brake shoes each bearing falsified trade mark of "ASK" and also having infringed artistic work, colour combination and get up of the complainant company were recovered. Accused Rajesh Kwatra was also arrested at the spot. After completing the investigation the large-sheet was filed on 05.02.07. 3. It is submitted by counsel for the Petitioner as well as the counsel for the Respondent No. 2 that an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties regarding all the points of dispute and a Memorandum of Understanding dated 24th May, 2007 has been entered into between the parties, copy whereof has been placed on record. As per the aforesaid settlement, it is agreed that the Petitioner shall refrain from any future trade, sale or business dealings in the spurious products manufactured by the Respondent No. 2. 4. Today, Mr. Rakesh Gosain, Authorized Representative and Constituted Attorney of M/s. Ask Automotive (P) Ltd./Respondent No. 2, who is present in Court and has been identified by the Investigating Officer SI Rajender Singh and by his counsel, affirms that he has compromised the matter and is now left with no claim of any nature whatsoever against the Petitioner and has no objection to the quashing of the First Information Report bearing No. 231/2006, Police Station Karol Bagh. An affidavit has also been filed by him praying for quashing of the FIR in view of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 24th May, 2007 stated to have been executed between the complainant company, through him, and the Petitioner Puneet Grover. 5. Keeping in view the fact that the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes and differences, in my view, it will serve no useful purpose to protract the litigation between the parties, which could only result in further avoidable litigation. 5. Keeping in view the fact that the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes and differences, in my view, it will serve no useful purpose to protract the litigation between the parties, which could only result in further avoidable litigation. Consequently, FIR No. 231/2006 under Sections 103/104 Trade Mark Act and Section 66 of the Copyright Act, Police Station Karol Bagh registered qua the Petitioner and all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. 6. W.P. (Crl.) No. 2823/2006 and Crl. M. No. 6223/2007 stand disposed of accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.