Allowed

Varun Tyagi v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2024A482/5657/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed two applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by Varun Tyagi. Following a successful mediation and settlement between the applicant and the respondents wherein the applicant agreed to pay a sum by demand draft, the court quashed the impugned summoning orders and proceedings initiated under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

What did the court decide?

Impugned summoning orders dated 08.09.2022 and 27.01.2020 and all proceedings in the respective cases were quashed.

Varun Tyagi vs State of Up and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:196062

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5657 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Varun Tyagi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Hasham,Syed Faiz Hasnain,Syed Riyaz Askari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Virendra Jaiswal

¶5

With

¶6

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6103 of 2024

¶7

¶8

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶9

List revised.

¶10

Heard Sri Syed Riyaz Askari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Virendra Jaiswal, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

¶11

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 5657 of 2024 has been filed by the applicant Varun Tyagi with the following prayers :-

¶12

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside / quash summoning order dated 08.09.2022 and bailable warrant dated 18.01.2024 under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act in Case No. 682 of 2022 (Rama Shyama Papers Pvt. Ltd. through Authorized Sales Manater Sunil Kumar Goyal son of Rajendra Kumar Goyal vs. Varun Tyagi, Cuboid Volume Projects), Police Station Kotwali, District Bareilly, passed by Additional Judge (N.I. Act), District Bareilly.

¶13

It is also most respectfully prayed in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the effect and operation of the summoning order dated 08.09.2022 and bailable warrant dated 18.01.2024 under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act in Case No. 682 of 2022 (Rama Shyama Papers Pvt. Ltd. through Authorized Sales Manater Sunil Kumar Goyal son of Rajendra Kumar Goyal vs. Varun Tyagi, Cuboid Volume Projects), Police Station Kotwali, District Bareilly, passed by Additional Judge (N.I. Act), District Bareilly.

¶14

It is also prayed that no coercive / consequential action be taken against the applicant during the pendency of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

¶15

and application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 6103 of 2024 has been filed by the same applicant Varun Tyagi with the following prayers:

¶16

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside / quash summoning order dated 27.01.2020, under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act in Case No. 2189 of 2019 (Rama Shyama Papers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Varun Tyagi), Police Station Kotwali, District Bareilly passed by the Additional Special Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, Bareilly.

¶17

It is also most respectfully prayed in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the effect and operation of the summoning order dated 27.01.2020, under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act in Case No. 2189 of 2019 (Rama Shyama Papers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Varun Tyagi), Police Station Kotwali, District Bareilly passed by the Additional Special Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, Bareilly.

¶18

¶19

The matters were referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court vide orders dated 04.03.2024 and 06.03.2024 in respective application for making an effort between the parties for settling their disputes amicably.

¶20

As per report of Mediation Centre dated 11.09.2024, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and further agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them.

¶21

As per the office report dated 30.05.2023, a reports from the Mediation Centre of this Court is on record in respective application which states that mediation between the parties is successful.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that parties have settled the dispute amicably before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and the applicant and the opposite party no. 2 have decided to settle their dispute with condition that applicant would pay amount of Rs.8,50,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 by way of demand draft and therefore the impugned proceedings / summoning order be quashed on the ground of settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶23

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 11.09.2024 between the parties and the Mediation succeeded and they have decided to settle their dispute with condition that applicant would pay amount of Rs.8,50,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 by way of demand draft. 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 7(f) of the said mediation report.

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

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/summoning order as prayed for by the applicant.

¶27

The applications are allowed .

¶28

The impugned summoning order dated 08.09.2022 and 27.01.2020 and proceedings of the aforesaid cases are hereby quashed.

¶29

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶30

Order Date :- 13.12.2024 Manoj

¶31

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

Varun Tyagi v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varun Tyagi 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mukesh and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Surya Prakash Verma and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Fakharuddin and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinay Kumar Alias Vijay and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Lakshmi Kant Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Riyaj Alias Riyaj vs State of U.P. and Another