Allowed

Harshit Rastogi v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2024A482/16563/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the charge sheet and cognizance order in a criminal case arising from cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court held that since the parties had successfully settled their dispute through the Court's Mediation Centre, the criminal proceedings could be quashed as per settled precedent.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings, charge sheet, and cognizance order in Case No. 1156 of 2024 against Harshit Rastogi are quashed.

Harshit Rastogi vs State of Up and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:166011

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16563 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Harshit Rastogi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

1 . Heard Sri Shailesh Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Saurabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the records.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Harshit Rastogi with the prayer to set-aside/quash the charge sheet dated 18.3.2024 as well as cognizance order dated 03.4.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal, District Sambhal in Case No. 1156 of 2024, State of U.P. vs. Harshit Rastogi, arising out of Case Crime No. 14 of 2024, under Section 420, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Sambhal, District Sambhal, by which the learned Magistrate summoned the applicant under Section 420, 406 I.P.C. as well as quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 1156 of 2024, State of U.P. vs. Harshit Rastogi, arising out of Case Crime No. 14 of 2024, under Section 420, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Sambhal, District Sambhal, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sambhal, District Sambhal. It is further prayed to stay the further proceedings of said case during pendency of the present application.

¶8

The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court vide order dated 20.5.2024 for making an effort between the parties for settling their disputes amicably.

¶9

As per report of Mediation Centre dated 27.8.2024 the parties have amicably settled their dispute and further agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them.

¶10

As per the office report dated 17.10.2024, a report from the Mediation Centre of this Court is on record which states that mediation between the parties is successful.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that parties have

¶12

settled the dispute amicably before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and therefore the impugned proceedings/charge sheet/cognizance order be quashed on the ground of settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶13

Learned State counsel could not dispute the factum of compromise between the parties which is on record.

¶14

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 20.5.2024 between the parties and the Mediation succeeded. The parties have settled their grievances and even the dispute arising in the present matter. The parties have agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them, the said fact is mentioned in para 6(b) of the said mediation report.

¶15

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.

¶16

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/charge sheet/cognizance order as prayed for by the applicant.

¶17

The present application is allowed.

¶18

The proceedings/charge sheet/cognizance order in the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.

¶19

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 18.10.2024 Naresh

¶21

Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Harshit Rastogi v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harshit Rastogi v. State of Up 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

Pramod and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Yash Yadav vs State of U.P.

Yash Sharma vs State of Up and Another

Magendra Kumar Sharma Alias Umesh Chandra and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Rachna vs State of U.P. 5 Others