The court invoked its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent the abuse of process of law and secure the ends of justice, emphasizing the need for amicable resolution of disputes and the guiding principles for exercising such power.

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh. Harjeet Singh and Sh. Navjeet Singh for quashing of FIR No.79/2014 dated 28.07.2014, under Sections 103/104 Trademark Act and Section 63 Copyright Act registered at Police Station EOW on the basis of Mediation Report of Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and the respondent no.2, namely, Sh. Devender Kumar Sachdeva on 08.02.2016.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been identified to be the authorized representative of the complainant company i.e. M/s. Asian Agencies in the FIR in question by his counsel.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the complainant company, M/s. Asian Agencies is engaged in the manufacturing/Trading/marketing of various products such as automobile parts, paints, spray paints, colour, varnishes & antitrust spray and paints. The company has been producing, importing and marketing the aforesaid products along with one of its unique product, acrylic Lacquer, bearing a distinctive trademark/brand “KOBE” among other products. The accused persons were allegedly carrying out their nefarious impugned activities under the trademark/name of the complainant company in the market and were selling spurious counterfeits and substandard products under the brand name of the complainant company.

Thereafter, on receiving the said information about the petitioners/accused persons, the complainant got lodged a complaint following which, the FIR in question was registered against the petitioners. An amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties during the pendency of the matter.

4. Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved. As per the Mediation Report, it is agreed that the petitioners shall not indulge into activity/trade or sale of product which would amount to infringement of registered trademark “KOBE” of the respondent no.2. It is agreed that the petitioners shall not indulge in any activity or sale of their product by using any trademark which would be similar to the trademark of the respondent no.2 in any manner which may infringe the colour combination, logo, artistic work and feature of the packaging scheme of the product of the respondent no.2. It is also agreed that the petitioners shall not use the trademark “KOBE” or any other trademark which may be deceptively or phonetically similar to the trademark of the respondent no.2 for passing off their goods as that of the goods of the respondent no.2. It is agreed that the respondent no.2 has agreed to forego the past and present claim of damages on account of passing off and infringement of trademark and copyright of “KOBE” from the petitioners on account of using the trademark name “NEW COBE” by the petitioners and that the respondent no.2 shall not file any suit for recovery of any amount against the petitioners as all the disputes have been settled in full and final amongst the parties. It is agreed that the parties shall withdraw all the cases/complaints filed by them against each other from the concerned courts and any proceeding which is still pending shall be treated as withdrawn by virtue of the present settlement. It is agreed the respondent no.2 shall cooperate in getting the FIR in question quashed against the petitioners.

Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of his affidavit dated 14.03.2016 supporting this petition. In the affidavit, he stated that he has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent. Now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end. Statement of the respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regard in wh