Allowed

Sumit Raghav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2022A482/22676/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court allowed the petitioner to quash criminal proceedings instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court observed that since the parties had reached an amicable settlement through the Court's Mediation Centre, the dispute was resolved, warranting the quashing of the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings and the order dated 10.05.2007 in Case No. 1780 of 2009 are quashed. The High Court directed the office to communicate this order to the concerned court within two weeks.

Sumit Raghav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22676 of 2009

¶3

Applicant :- Sumit Raghav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,D.K.Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

List revised.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants is not present. Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State is present.

¶7

The matter is thus being decided finally on the basis of records with the assistance of learned State Counsel.

¶8

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to allow the present application and quash the entire proceeding including order dated 10.05.2007 of Case No. 1780 of 2009 (Roopak Kumar Singh Vs. Sumit Raghav and others), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Moradabad. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the further proceeding of aforesaid case, during the pendency of present application.

¶9

The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court vide order dated 27.11.2009 for making an effort between the parties for settling their disputes amicably.

¶10

As per report of Mediation Centre dated 02.02.2010 the parties have entered into settlement dated 02.02.2010 and have amicably settled their dispute and further agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them.

¶11

As per the office report dated 03.08.2022 a report from the Mediation Centre of this Court is on record which states that mediation between the parties is successful.

¶12

From perusal of the report of Mediation Centre of this Court, it appears that in pursuance of the said order the mediation proceedings were taken up which ended in a settlement dated 02.02.2010 between the parties and the Mediation succeeded. The parties have settled their grievances and even the dispute arising out in the present matter. The reference of the present

¶13

case is in para no. 6 (e) of the final settlement between the parties so drawn before the Mediation Centre where they have agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them.

¶14

The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Apex Court in the cases of (1) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another: (2003)4 SCC 675; (2) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2008) 9 SCC 677; (3) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; (4) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303; (5) Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278 and (6) Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 has held that the cases in which the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed.

¶15

From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the proceedings as prayed for by the applicants.

¶16

The present application is allowed.

¶17

The proceedings as well as the order dated 10.05.2007 in the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.

¶18

Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court within two weeks from today.

¶19

Order Date :- 8.8.2022 AS Rathore

¶20

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR Date: 2022.08.11 14:12:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sumit Raghav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Raghav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish Hemdev and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pritanshu Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raja Ram Maurya Vs State of U.P.

Jagat Singh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jahuri Alias Kanishak Pal Singh Vs State