Allowed

Murli Manohar Malhotra v. State & Anr.

Delhi HC9 Jan 2024CRL.M.C./698/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order quashed FIR No. 144/2003 for copyright and trademark offences. Settlement was accepted based on an affidavit by the complainant's authorised representative despite the absence of the specific authorisation document on record. Costs imposed on petitioner.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 144/2003 and all proceedings therefrom quashed subject to deposit of Rs. 10,000/- with Delhi Police Welfare Society Fund.

Murli Manohar Malhotra Vs State & Anr. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~14 & 15

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

¶4

+	CRL.M.C. 698/2 MURLI MANOH	019 AR MALH	OTRA ..... Petitioner
		Through:	Mr. Nikhil Mehta and Mr. Varun Sharma, Advs.
		versus
15	STATE & ANR.	Through:	..... Respondents Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with Insp. Satish Dagar, PS EOW None for R-2
+	CRL.M.C. 706/2 SH. BADAL JAI	019 N	..... Petitioner
		Through:	Mr. Nikhil Mehta and Mr. Varun Sharma, Advs.
		versus
	STATE & ANR.	Through:	..... Respondents Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with Insp. Satish Dagar, PS EOW
			None for R-2

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 09.01.2024

¶6

The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR bearing no. 144/2003 dated 12.03.2003 registered at PS Karol Bagh for offences punishable under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 78 & 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.

¶7

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶8

This is a digitally signed order.

¶9

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/05/2024 at 12:18:30

¶10

complaint given by one Mr. Nirmal Singh as an Authorised Representative of Respondent No.2 under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 read with Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 was settled pursuant to which a Memorandum of Settlement dated 15.10.2018 was also executed.

¶11

He submits that Mr. Nirmal Singh was authorised not only to file a complaint in relation to offences under the Copyright Act, 1957 and Trade Marks Act, 1958 but was also authorised to settle the dispute on behalf of Respondent No.2. He further submits that offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 are compoundable in nature as they attract punishment only up to 3 years.

¶12

None has appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2.

¶13

The learned counsel further submits that Respondent No.2 is stated to have been merged with another company, the status of which is unknown.

¶14

The affidavit filed by Mr. Nirmal Singh is already on record which categorically states that he is representing the Respondent No.2 company as an Authorised Representative and has settled the disputes with the petitioner, and he has no objection if FIR No.144/2003 registered at PS Karol Bagh is quashed.

¶15

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State however submits that authorisation in favour of Mr. Nirmal Singh to settle the disputes has not been brought on record.

¶16

In view of the duly sworn affidavit by Mr. Nirmal Singh, this Court has no reason to doubt that the parties had settled their disputes. The Memorandum of Settlement entered between the

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/05/2024 at 12:18:30

¶19

parties categorically states that they have amicably settled their grievances and have no objection for quashing of the FIR bearing No. 144/2003.

¶20

This Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the case pending. However, since the State machinery was put in motion and the chargesheet had already been filed this Court considers it apposite to impose costs of ₹10,000/-.

¶21

In view of the above, FIR No.144/2003 and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed, subject to the petitioner depositing a cost of ₹10,000/- with the Delhi Police Welfare Society Fund.

¶22

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶23

JANUARY 9, 2024 ns

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/05/2024 at 12:18:30

Murli Manohar Malhotra v. State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murli Manohar Malhotra v. State & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh @ Monu Vs State NCT of Delhi

Asia Pragati Strategic Investment Fund & Anr. Vs Harvinder Singh Sikka & Ors.

Mohit Sodhi & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Shambhu Kumar Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Rajveer Sardana Vs State & Ors.

Beeru @ Veeru Vs State