Prince Chugh v. State Of Haryana

-1CRM-M-8893 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-8893 of 2018 Date of Decision: 02.04.2019 Prince Chugh

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN Present:- None for the petitioner.

Mr. Raj Kumar Makkar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Pradeep Virk, Advocate, for the complainant. RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) Learned counsel has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant on his own though he has not been impleaded as party. The same is taken on record.

Through instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prayer has been made for quashing FIR No.147 dated 03.06.2016 registered under Sections 63/65 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 and Section 420 IPC at Police Station Sector 17-18, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon, Haryana. Learned counsel for the complainant contends that on 01.03.2018, petitioner had mis-stated before this Court that in civil suit filed by the complainant, no temporary injunction was granted against the petitioner. In fact, in a suit filed by the complainant against the petitioner in Delhi High Court, vide order dated 08.09.2015 petitioner was restrained from using brand names "Easy Slim Tea" and "Fair Look Cream". In fact, petitioner is intentionally evading his service in the said civil suit before RAVINDER SINGH 2019.04.05 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

-2CRM-M-8893 of 2018 Delhi High Court and on the other hand is pursuing instant petition. In view of above, instant petition is dismissed for want of prosecution and for mis-stating the facts.

(RAMENDRA JAIN) April 02, 2019 JUDGE R.S.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RAVINDER SINGH 2019.04.05 11:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document