KEWAL KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. KHUSH DIL KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners-accused have moved this petition under Section 482, Cr. Procedure Code, for quashing the proceedings initiated on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioners. Respondent No. 1 complainant filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad against the petitioners-accused alleging various offences under the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate, after taking into consideration the preliminary evidence led by the respondent-complainant, issued consideration the preliminary evidence led by the respondent-complainant, issued process against the petitioners-accused to face trial under Sections 420 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Petitioners are admittedly the proprietors of the registered trade mark "shakti Bhog". The respondent-complainant contends that he bona fide believed the representation by accused No. 1 that the said registered trade mark pertains to manufacturing and marketing spices and condiments also. On that belief, the complainant claims to have entered into an agreement dated 5-4-1991 with the petitioners and obtained a licence to use the trade mark "shakti Bhog" for the purpose of production and marketing of spices and condiments in consideration of 5 per cent of the gross sales effected by him. The terms and conditions of the agreement are mentioned in Annexure-P3, and a detailed reference to it at this stage is not necessary. The complainant started manufacturing his product in terms of that agreement. It appears that thereafter, sometime from April 1992, there appeared some difference of opinion between the parties as to the use of the trade mark "shakti Bhog" by respondent No. 1 complainant. The papers also indicate that the petitioners has also taken some steps to move the Ministry in order to restrain him from using the trade mark. Further, admittedly on 9-9-1992 the petitioners had filed a civil suit to restrain the respondent-complainant from using the trade mark "shakti Bhog". The admitted position is that the question regarding injunction to use the trade mark was thrashed in the High Court at Delhi, and Their Lordship vide order dated 7-5-1993 had granted an injunction against the respondent-complainant to prevent him from using the trade mark "shakti Bhog". That was an interim injunction order.

(3.) In the context of these contentions and litigation between the parties, it is pertinent to note as an important face that in the civil suit in respect of the injunction restraining the respondent from using the said trade mark, the parties arrived at a settlement in the suit and the matter before Delhi High Court was ordered to be disposed off in terms of the compromise. That order passed on 28-4-1995. In the course of arguments before this Court a photostat copy of the said compromise has been filed. At a later stage, I will refer to the relevant part of it.