',---- ....... _/ 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 543/2011 0/0 VIMAL SINDHW ANI ..... Petitioner versus Through: Mr. Mukesh M. Goel, Adv. with Petitioner in person. NCT OF DELHI & ANR. . .... Respondents CORAM: Through: Mr. Pawan Bahl, APP for the State. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Adv. for R-2 along with Complainant in person. S.I. C.B. Singh, PS EOW Cell. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA ORDER 23.05.2011 By this petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 127/2009 under Sections 103/1 04 Trade lVlarks Act and Section 63 Copyright Act registered at PS EOW Cell on the complaint ofShri Rajesh Arora, who is the authorized representative of Respondent No.2. The allegations levelled against the Petitioner are that he was selling thinner under the trademark '\Vhite Murga', which is deceptively similar to Respondent No's 2 registered trademark 'Murga', with a device ofl'vlurga on it. In view of the registration of the trademark 'Murga' in favour of Respondent No.2, it was the sole owner thereof. On the basis of said FIR an CRL. M.e. 543/2011 Page 1 of 3 .'- '-'. ,,;: ,.:..c: ,,, , . 1< Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified investigation was carried ont and a charge sheet was filed against i '! petitioner and two other accused persons. During the pendency of the proceedings before the learned trial Court, the Petitioner has entered into a settlement with Respondent No.2. A special power of attorney executed by ",.:.. Respondent No.2 in favour of Mr. Rajesh Arora has been filed on record. The Petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Arora, who have been identified by their respective counsel and the Investigating Officer, state that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and in view thereof Respondent No.2 does not want to pursue the aforesaid FIR and proceedings thereunder qua the Petitioner. They pray that the abovementioned FIR and proceedings thereunder qua the petitioner may be quashed. On the complaint of Respondent No.2, raids were conducted at three different places and two other accused were found committing the alleged '!' offences besides the present Petitioner. However, each raid constituted a separate offence and during investigation, no conspiracy was found between the three accused persons. If the acts of the three accused persons are not in conspiracy with each other and are independent offences, there will be no legal impediment, if the FIR and proceedings thereunder qua the Petitioner are quashed. CRL. M.C. 543/2011 Page 2 of 3 :.;: --'. r- In view of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved their differences of their own free will, volition and without any coercion and no useful purpose will be served in continuance of the proceedings, rather the same would create further acrimony between them, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto qua the Petitioner only. Consequently, FIR No. 127/2009 under Sections 103/104 Trade Marks Act and Section 63 Copyright Act registered at PS EOW Cell and proceedings pursuant thereto qua the Petitioner are hereby quashed. Parties have signed this order sheet in admowledgment of their statements before this Court. The petition stands disposed of. Order dasti. MAY 2011 vkm __ 2\ ') Page30fJ :bJ1;'" 3/2011 CRL. M.C. 54 I \)1. ,I . 6.t.. p." "'- :" I --'< I