INTRODUCTION

In an increasingly interconnected global market, the protection of intellectual property rights, particularly trademarks, has become a pivotal concern for businesses and consumers alike. The proliferation of counterfeit goods poses significant challenges, not only damaging brand reputation but also undermining consumer trust. The legal landscape surrounding trademark enforcement is complex, particularly when it intersects with criminal law. The case of “Rajneet Singh and Others v. State of NCT of Delhi and Another CRL.M.C. 1291/2025, CRL.M.A. 5805/2025,” decided by the High Court of Delhi in November 2025, exemplifies the delicate balancing act that courts must undertake in adjudicating matters involving counterfeit goods and trademark rights. This case emerged from a complaint filed by Brand Monitor on behalf of the luxury fashion brand Gianni Versace S.R.L. regarding the sale and advertisement of counterfeit products in North Delhi. Upon registration of the FIR under the Trade Marks Act, the petitioners sought to quash these proceedings, arguing that subsequent voluntary settlements with the complainant should negate the need for prosecution. The High Court's decision to quash the FIR raises important questions about the nature of non-compoundable offences, the influence of voluntary settlements, and the expectations of public interest in legal proceedings. Through this analysis, we will explore how the court addressed the unique circumstances of the case, applied existing legal precedents, and ultimately reinforced the principles of justice and judicial efficiency. The outcome of this case provides valuable insights into the adaptability of legal frameworks when faced with genuine disputes and highlights the potential for amicable resolutions in trademark cases.

CASE BACKGROUND

In October 2024, Brand Monitor represented Gianni Versace S.R.L. in lodging a complaint about counterfeit goods being sold and advertised in North Delhi. This led to the registration of FIR No. 460/2024 against Rajneet Singh and others under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, which address the unauthorized use of trademarks and impose penalties on violators. The severity of these allegations captures the attention of both legal practitioners and brand owners, as the stakes involved in trademark infringement are substantial. However, the legal narrative shifted when the petitioners executed separate settlement agreements with the complainant, acknowledging their actions and compensating the brand for the unauthorized use of its trademarks. Following this, the complainant submitted an Affidavit of No Objection in court, affirming that the settlements were voluntary and that the complainant did not wish to pursue the matter further. This prompted the question of whether the High Court could dismiss the FIR despite the serious nature of the charges.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The legal backdrop of this case revolves around the Trade Marks Act, 1999, particularly Sections 103 and 104, which detail the penalties for trademark infringement. Traditionally, violations under these sections are considered non-compoundable, meaning they cannot be settled out of court, which complicates the petitioners' position. To navigate the complexities of this case, it is essential to reference significant judicial precedents. The landmark cases of ‘Gian Singh v. State of Punjab’ and ‘Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab’ established that High Courts hold the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (analogous to Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code). These decisions emphasize that quashing may be appropriate in cases where a genuine settlement exists, as long as no significant public interest is compromised.

To know more about this, please follow the below link:

COURT'S ANALYSIS

The High Court of Delhi considered several factors in reaching its decision to quash the FIR, emphasizing a pragmatic approach toward justice.

1. Voluntary Settlement: The court highlighted that the settlements made by the petitioners were conducted voluntarily, without coercion, and were confirmed by the complainant through an affidavit. This factor greatly influenced the court's perspective, as it demonstrated a mutual agreement between the parties to resolve their dispute amicably.

2. Public Interest Consideration: The court recognized the complainant's express unwillingness to support prosecution, underlining that the continuation of proceedings would not serve any substantial public interest. This consideration was pivotal in the court's assessment of whether to proceed with the case.

3. Likelihood of Conviction: The court analyzed the practicality of pursuing a conviction given the voluntary nature of the settlement and the complainants non-support. The likelihood of a successful prosecution appeared minimal, leading to the conclusion that further proceedings would be futile.

4. Judicial Economy: A practical aspect of the court's decision reflected a desire for judicial efficiency. With significant backlogs in the legal system, avoiding protracted proceedings over a case unlikely to yield fruitful results aligns with broader efforts to enhance the functioning of the judiciary.

Ultimately, the court deemed this case appropriate for exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR based on the compelling circumstances presented.

HOLDING AND IMPLICATIONS

The High Court granted the petition and quashed FIR No. 460/2024 and all consequential proceedings. While this decision reflected a win for the petitioners, the court's imposition of costs of INR 5,000 each to be deposited in the Delhi Police Welfare Fund indicated an awareness of state resources employed in the original proceedings. This ruling carries significant implications for the application of trademark law in India. It illustrates that even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, the judiciary can exercise discretion based on the parties’ mutual agreements, provided that the public interest remains unharmed. This approach provides a pathway for businesses to resolve disputes amicably, potentially reducing the burden on the legal system while still protecting the integrity of intellectual property.

CONCLUSION

The ‘Rajneet Singh’ case stands as a critical juncture in the enforcement of trademark law and the application of criminal proceedings related to intellectual property. It elucidates the court's role in balancing rigorous enforcement protections with practical realities in the pursuit of justice. By recognizing the validity of voluntary settlements, the court underscores a growing recognition of the need for flexibility and adaptability in a legal landscape that must accommodate dynamic business practices and relationships. As the case reiterates, the preservation of public interest and judicial efficiency must coexist with the robust upholding of trademark rights. Ultimately, this decision serves as a noteworthy precedent for future cases, emphasizing the potential for collaborative resolution in intellectual property disputes while ensuring that justice is served in the most effective manner possible.