After Man Agrees To Stop Using Disputed Trademark, Karnataka HC Quashes Criminal Case Against Him On Settlement

Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint against the petitioner, arrayed as accused No. 3, alleging offences under Sections 318(4), 352, 351(2) and 351(3), read with Section 3(5), of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The case was registered as Crime No. 28/2025 and was pending as C.C. No. 486/2026 before the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi.

The parties later filed a joint application and affidavits recording a voluntary settlement.

As a material term, the petitioner undertook to cease using the disputed trademark and not to infringe or misuse the complainant’s or his employer’s trademarks; respondent No. 2 agreed not to pursue the proceedings against the petitioner.

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings, although the alleged offences were non-compoundable.

The Court considered Sections 318(4), 352, 351(2) and 351(3), read with Section 3(5), of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the parties’ application under Section 359(6) and (8), read with Section 528, of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Although the offences were non-compoundable, the Court invoked its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings.

Relying on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab , (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court applied the principle that inherent power may be used to quash non-compoundable proceedings following settlement where doing so serves the ends of justice or prevents abuse of process; the Court should consider the nature of the offence, the character of the dispute, and the likelihood of conviction.

The Court treated the dispute as one that had been amicably resolved and noted that the complainant did not wish to pursue the case, while the petitioner had undertaken to stop using the disputed trademark and to refrain from future infringement.

It accepted the settlement as voluntary and considered that continuation of the prosecution was unnecessary and would amount to an abuse of process.

The Court also concluded that, in light of the settlement, the prospects of conviction were remote, and applied the Narinder Singh principles to exercise its inherent jurisdiction despite the non-compoundable nature of the offences.

It quashed the proceedings in Crime No. 28/2025, pending as C.C. No. 486/2026, and allowed I.A. No. 2/2026.

The operative order refers to the entire proceedings, while the settlement and affidavits sought relief insofar as the petitioner/accused No. 3 was concerned.