AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Suresh Kait, J.
Crl. M.A. No. 3/2011
Vide this application the Petitioner has sought restoration of the petition, which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 13.12.2010. It has been recorded in the said order that even on the second call no one appeared for the Petitioner and even on last two consecutive dates Petitioner remained unrepresented.
The present petition is restored subject to cost of Rs. 15,000/- to be paid in favour of ''Welfare Fund for Children and Destitute Women'' at Nirmal Chhaya, Jail Road, Tihar, New Delhi, within two weeks from today. Proof of the same be placed on record.
Crl.M.C.2527/2007
With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
The instant petition is being filed on the basis of compromise deed arrived at Amritsar and the same was filed in the Court of Vivek Puri, Ld. ADJ, at Amritsar.
As per Clause 4 of the said compromise, it is recorded as under:
That the Plaintiff undertakes to withdraw the above-said case and contempt proceedings pending in this Hon''ble Court against Defendants.
This compromise is valid for case FIR No. 586/2002 u/s 63 Copy Right Act and u/s 78/79 Trade Mark Act, PS Lahori Gate, Delhi. The Plaintiff in view of the compromise and for this reason Prince Sagar shall co-operate in getting the said FIR quashed in the High Court as per law.
Ld. counsel for Respondent No. 2 disputes the second part of para 4, which is hand-written. However, he submits that said hand-written portion was not in the compromise deed when Respondent No. 2 put his signature and handed over the same to the opposing counsel. The said compromise arrived only in Suit No. (RBT) 23 of 2003/2006 in the Court of Ld. ADJ Shri Vivek Puri, at Amritsar.
Respondent No. 2 also disputes the signature on hand-written portion.
Ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that ld. ADJ, District Courts, Amritsar has recorded the settlement in order dated 26.10.2006. In addition to that vide order dated 26.10.2006 it was recorded that the terms and conditions of compromise Ex. C1 were correct and parties shall remain bound by it. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn as settled in the compromise.
Though ld. counsel for the Respondent has disputed the hand-written portion of para 4 of the compromise deed and initial put thereon.
However, present petition was filed way back in 2007. Ld. counsel for the Respondent has made appearance in the matter on 31.03.2009. He only raised objection and disputed this fact today in the court, however, has placed nothing on record to rebut the same.
Keeping in view the above settlement, which took place between the parties, I am of the view that the aforesaid settlement is binding in nature, therefore, I quash FIR No. 586 dated 14.12.2002 u/s 63 of the Copyrights Act and u/s 78/79 of the Trademarks Act, registered at PS Lahori Gate and proceedings emanating therefrom.
Accordingly, Crl. M.C. No. 2527/2007 is allowed.
No order as to costs.