RAJESH GUPTA vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — CRM-M/42054/2025
Disposed: --DISMISSED on 24th March 2026.
CNR: PHHC011213602025
Filing Number
CRM-M/63536/2025
Filing Date
31-Jul-2025
Registration No
CRM-M/42054/2025
Registration Date
01-Aug-2025
Judge
Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Coram
Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel
Bench Type
Single
Category
99 ( 945 )
Sub-Category
38.21 - QUASHING PETITION COMPROMISE U/S 482 CRPC GEN ( 641 )
Judicial Branch
CRIMINAL BRANCH
Decision Date
24-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
--DISMISSED
Last updated 11-Apr-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.RAJESH GUPTA
Adv. RAJIV KUMAR SAINI
-
2.STATE OF HARYANA
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
-
2.STATE OF HARYANA
-
3.SURESH SHARMA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
Mr. Justice Sumeet GoelView PDF
Case Summary: CRM-M/42054/2025 Decision (March 24, 2026): Justice Sumeet Goel of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed Rajesh Gupta's petition seeking to quash FIR No. 330 (dated November 22, 2024) registered under IPC Sections 406, 420, 467, and 468 for cheating and criminal breach of trust. Key Reasoning: The court found that although parties had earlier reached a compromise, the petitioner failed to honor its terms despite repeated court-granted opportunities and undertakings. The petitioner paid only ₹2 lacs of the settled amount and made no sincere effort to pay the remaining ₹10 lacs before the agreed deadline of December 22, 2025, demonstrating that the compromise was merely a tactical measure to obtain favorable court orders rather than genuine settlement. The court refused to exercise its discretionary inherent jurisdiction in favor of a litigant in bad faith non-compliance with his own undertaking. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
31-Jul-2025
Case filed
Registration No. CRM-M/42054/2025
Case Summary: CRM-M/42054/2025 Decision (March 24, 2026): Justice Sumeet Goel of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed Rajesh Gupta's petition seeking to quash FIR No. 330 (dated November 22, 2024) registered under IPC Sections 406, 420, 467, and 468 for cheating and criminal breach of trust. Key Reasoning: The court found that although parties had earlier reached a compromise, the petitioner failed to honor its terms despite repeated court-granted opportunities and undertakings. The petitioner paid only ₹2 lacs of the settled amount and made no sincere effort to pay the remaining ₹10 lacs before the agreed deadline of December 22, 2025, demonstrating that the compromise was merely a tactical measure to obtain favorable court orders rather than genuine settlement. The court refused to exercise its discretionary inherent jurisdiction in favor of a litigant in bad faith non-compliance with his own undertaking. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts