Crl. Misc. No. M-155 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-155 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 4.3.2011 Ajay Dhawan .......... petitioner Versus Union Territory & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. Vikash Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ashima Mor, Standing counsel for UT, Chandigarh. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** RITU BAHRI, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 239 dated 21.7.2010, under Section 420 IPC, Section 103 & 104 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 63 & 64 of Copyright Act, registered at Police Station, Sector 34, Chandigarh and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise. As per the contents of the FIR, Mr. Dabru Anand is authorized to file complaint and to proceed in accordance with law against the Company who is manufacturing, selling and printing Crl. Misc. No. M-155 of 2011 -2- duplicate goods pertaining to copyright. During market survey in Sector 34-C, one person namely Ajay, who is running shop under the name and style of Dhawan Furnishers in Booth No. 29 is selling duplicate thinner under the trademark “Welcome” of the company by stating it original product, on which the wrong hologram of the company is affixed. The innocent public is being cheated by way of affixing hologram containing “Welcome” along with photograph of the owner due to which loss is being caused in the form of sales tax to the Government. The offence committed is punishable under Section 63, 64 of Copyright Act, Se ction 420 IPC and Section 103 & 104 of Trademark Act. The petitioner Ajay Dhawan son of late Shri Ashok Kumar Dhawan has stated in the petition that his father Ashok Kumar Dhawan, was running business under the name and style of M/s Dhawan Furnishers being its sole proprietor and during t he regular course of business, the petitioner used to purchase products manufactured by respondent No.2 from its local distributor and dealers. Shri Ashok Kumar Dhawan, father of the petitioner, was not keeping well for the last 3-4 years and the petitioner remained occupied in his treatment and w as unable to give due attention towards the business and resultantly, all sales and purchases in regular course of business was used to be done by the employees of the petitioner. The employees of the petitioner were not educated and were unable to distinguish between original and duplicate packing of the products of respondent No.2, which is otherwise also Crl. Misc. No. M-155 of 2011 -3- very difficult to distinguish even by well educated person. In view of the above stats facts, neither the petitioner nor his father was involved in day-to-day business activities for the last more than one year as the father of the petitioner was under regular treatment and dialysis. He passed away on 21.8.2010. Ms. Ashima Mor, learned standing counsel for UT, Chandigarh informed the Court that the complaint is at the investigation stage and no challan has been presented in the Court. The parties have compromised the matter during the pendency of the proceedings. An affidavit of Dabru Anand son of Mr. D. Prempati has been filed in Court along with the authority letter of the proprietor M/s New Wembley Products, authorizing Mr. Dabru Anand to appear on behalf of respondent No.2 in this criminal miscellaneous and give consent for allowing this petition. As per the affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it has been stated that with the intervention of some respectables and on the basis of representation of actual facts and bona fide conduct of the petitioner, particularly in view of unconditional apology tendered by him, the deponent has compromised the matter. Terms & conditions of the compromise have been recorded into the compromise Annexure P-2. As per the compromise, the petitioner shall abide by the terms and conditions No. 1 to 4. This compromise has been arrived at with their own sweet will, without any pressure or coercion. Respondent No.2, Mr. Dabru Anand has been authorized to get this FIR quashed in view of the compromise. He had got the complaint registered initially and was duly authorized to do so by Crl. Misc. No. M-155 of 2011 -4- New Wembley Products, as is evident from the contents of the FIR. After going though the material on record, this Court is of t he view that the compromise has been arrived at between the parties is fair and just manner. Broad guidelines have been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another 2007(3) RCR(crl.) 1052 for quashing the prosecution when parties entered into compromise. The Full Bench has observed that this power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under :- “26. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and others, (1980)1 SCC 63, Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the following words :- “The finest hour of justice arrived propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” 27. The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. No embargo, be in the shape of Section Crl. Misc. No. M-155 of 2011 -5- 320(9) if the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 28. The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation.” The ratio of the Full Bench judgment is a special reference has been made to the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide where the victim dies in the course of transaction would fall in the category where compounding may not be permitted. Heinous offences like highway robbery, dacoity or a case involving clear-cut allegations of rape should also Crl. Misc. No. M-155 of 2011 -6- fall in the prohibited category. However, the offences against human body other than murder and culpable homicide may be permitted to be compounded when the Court is in the position to record a finding that the settlement between the parties is voluntary and fair. The Court must examine the cases of weaker and vulnerable victims with necessary caution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 429. has examined a case where quashing was sought of an FIR under Section 406 IPC being non-compoundable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :- “1. No useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings in the light of the compromise – There was no possibility of conviction. 2. It is advisable that in disputes where question involved is of purely personal nature and no public policy is involved – Court should ordinarily accept the compromise. 3. Keeping the matter alive with no possibility of conviction is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they a re, cannot afford.” Keeping in view the status report, this Court has no hesitation to quash the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Consequently, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Crl. Misc. No. M-155 of 2011 -7- Punjab (supra) and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), FIR No. 239 dated 21.7.2010, under Section 420 IPC, Section 103 & 104 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 63 & 64 of Copyright Act, registered at Police Station, Sector 34, Chandigarh and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom is quashed on the basis of compromise. The petition stands disposed of. 4.3.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE