Allowed

Pankaj Khemka @ Pankaj Kumar & Ors. v. State (Govt. of Cnt of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi HC4 Jan 2017CRL.M.C./16/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi quashed an FIR and related proceedings for trademark and copyright violations coupled with cheating and forgery offences. The court allowed the petition as the parties had amicably settled the dispute before a mediation centre and agreed to abide by the settlement terms.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 49/2012 and proceedings pursuant thereto quashed, subject to petitioner depositing ₹25,000 with the Juvenile Justice Fund.

Pankaj Khemka @ Pankaj Kumar & Ors. Vs State (Govt. of… — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

10# $~

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 16/2017 PANKAJ KHEMKA @ PANKAJ KUMAR & ORS...... Petitioners Represented by: Mr. S.P. Sharma, Advocate with petitioners in person.

¶4

versus

¶5

STATE (GOVT. OF CNT OF DELHI) & ANR. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for the State with SI Sri Bhagwan, PS Lahori Gate. Mr. Mohd. Wasim Khan, Advocate for respondent No.2 with respondent No.2 in person.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

¶7

% 04.01.2017

¶8

Crl. M.A. No. 118/2017 (Exemption)

¶9

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶10

CRL.M.C. 16/2017

¶11

By the present petition the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 49/2012 under Sections 103/104 Trade Marks Act, 63/65 Copyright Act r/w Sections 420/465/466/471/486/487/120B IPC registered at PS Lahori Gate, Delhi on the complaint of Respondent No.2 and the proceedings pursuant thereto on the ground that the parties have settled the matter.

¶12

Learned APP for the State on instructions from the Investigating Officer submits that on the complaint of Ashok Bhartwal, Manager Legal CRL.M.C. 16/2017 Page 1 of 3

¶13

and Authorised Representative of M/s J.K. Tyre & Industries Ltd., whose trademark and copyright had been allegedly violated, the charge sheet was filed against the three petitioners, that is, Pankaj Khemka @ Pankaj Kumar, Proprietor of M/s Pankaj Tyre, petitioner No.1, Daljeet Singh, Proprietor of M/s Daljit Tyre, petitioner No.2 and Rajesh Malhotra, Proprietor of M/s Malhotra Tyre, petitioner No. 3 wrongly mentioned as petitioner No.2 in the memo of parties.

¶14

The respondent No.2 Ashok Bhartwal is present in Court and is identified by the learned counsel and the Investigating Officer. Copy of the authorisation in his favour has been filed at pages 74 and 75 of the paper book. Moreover the above noted FIR was also lodged by Ashok Bhartwal in the representative capacity as noted above. Respondent No. 2 states that he has settled the matter with the petitioners in terms of the settlement dated 26^th September, 2016 arrived at before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, after the petitioners have undertaken not to use either the trademark or the copyright of the respondent No.2 in future. Respondent No.2 on behalf of M/s J.K. Tyre & Industries Ltd. states that he does not want to pursue the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.

¶15

Petitioners who are present in Court and are identified by the learned counsel affirm the statement of respondent No.2 and state that they will abide by the terms of the settlement dated 26^th September, 2016 arrived at between the parties before the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

¶16

Since the parties have settled the matter amicably of their own free CRL.M.C. 16/2017 Page 2 of 3

¶17

will, volition and without any coercion, no useful purpose will be served in continuance of the proceedings. There is no legal impediment in quashing the FIR in question. It would be in the interest of justice to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.

¶18

Consequently, FIR No. 49/2012 under Sections 103/104 Trade Marks Act, 63/65 Copyright Act r/w Sections 420/465/466/471/486/487/120B IPC registered at PS Lahori Gate, Delhi and proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed subject to the each of the petitioners depositing a sum of ₹25,000/- with the Juvenile Justice Fund maintained by the Registrar General of this Court within four weeks.

¶19

Parties have signed this order sheet in acknowledgment of their statements made before this Court.

¶20

The petition is disposed of. Order dasti.

¶21

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

¶22

JANUARY 04, 2017 ‘vn’

¶23

Page 3 of 3

¶24

CRL.M.C. 16/2017

Pankaj Khemka @ Pankaj Kumar & Ors. v. State (Govt. of Cnt of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Khemka @ Pankaj Kumar & Ors. v. State (Govt. of Cnt of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jisan @ Bittoo Vs State NCT of Delhi

Nikhil Kumar Vs State & Ors.

Dharamender & Anr. Vs State NCT Govt of Delhi & Anr.

Kamlesh Kumar Jha & Ors. Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Veenu @ Ajay Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Rahul Patial Vs State & Ors.