RUCHIR RASTOGI versus PANKAJ RASTOGI AND OTHERS ETC.

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 914 · Decided: 19-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 914 : 2023 INSC 941
914
CASE DETAILS
RUCHIR RASTOGI
v.
PANKAJ RASTOGI AND OTHERS ETC.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 3283-3284 of 2013)
OCTOBER 19, 2023
[VIKRAM NATH AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: High Court if justifi ed in quashing the FIR 
lodged by the appellant against respondents u/ss.457, 380 and 506, IPC.
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.457, 380, 506 – FIR fi led stating that the 
appellant and respondent No.1 as Kartas of respective HUF were 
partners in equal share and there was an interim order of preserving 
the assets and belongings of the shop in question – However, Respondent 
No.1, along with other co-accused, removed the assets and belongings 
of the shop in violation thereof – When the appellant inquired from 
respondent No.1, he was threatened to keep quiet otherwise he would 
lose his life – FIR quashed – Legality:
Held: Father of the appellant, ‘AR’, ‘KR’, and respondent No.1 are 
real brothers – The shop in question was a joint partnership of the HUF of 
the appellant and respondent No.1 and they had signed the partnership deed 
as Kartas of the respective HUF – The purchase of the shop in question 
by M/s Sushma Constructions Pvt. Ltd. of which ‘AR’ and his wife were 
the promoters/Directors from the erstwhile owner could have been part 
of the larger conspiracy planned in collusion with respondent No.1 but 
no fi nding is being recorded to that eff ect at this stage – The fi ling of the 
Suit for eviction by M/s Sushma Constructions Pvt. Ltd. impleading only 
respondent No.1 as the defendant speaks volumes about their collusion 
– What made ‘AR’ believe that it was respondent No.1, who was alone 
the owner and in possession of the business being run from the shop in 
question, is nowhere refl ected – In any case, once the notices for eviction 
were served upon respondent No.1, he ought to have disclosed this fact in 
915
the said suit that fi rstly, the business in the shop in question was being jointly 
run by him and the appellant and that there was an injunction operating 
passed by a competent Court of District Judge in proceedings u/s.9, 1996 
Act – Further, Respondent No.1 almost admitted the claim for eviction 
which ultimately was the basis for the High Court to decree the suit – It 
was a collusive suit and, in any case, respondent No.1 was dishonest and 
deliberately concealed the material fact from the Court – Respondent No.1, 
along with other co-accused, including not only the Directors/promoters 
of M/s Sushma Constructions Pvt. Ltd. but also others, removed the assets 
and belongings inside the shop in question by breaking open the locks 
in violation of the injunction orders – All the off ences are cognizable in 
nature and on facts, basic ingredients being in the FIR, the High Court 
erred in quashing the FIR – Whether the off ences are proved or not would 
be a subject matter of the Trial and before that of the investigation as to 
whether a triable case is made out or not by the investigating agency but in 
any case, was not a case where FIR was liable to be quashed – Impugned 
judgment set aside – Matter to proceed with respect to the FIR in question 
in accordance with law – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.9, 
36. [Paras 5, 8, 9, 15 and 17]
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 
3283-3284 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.04.2019 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Allahabad in CRMWP Nos.31343 and 31370 of 2018.
Appearances:
Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Rahul Kaushik, Ms. Bhuvneshwari Pathak, 
Varun Bhasin, Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Keshav Khandelwal, Advs. for the 
Appellant.
Basant R. Sr. Adv., Suvigya Awasthy, Vivek Joshi, Kavinesh RM, Ms. 
Radha Gupta, Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, Ankit Goel, Sameer Jain, Abhinav 
Shrivastava, Rohan Gulati, Shivang Rawat, Advs. for the Respondents.
RUCHIR RASTOGI v. PANKAJ RASTOGI AND OTHERS 
ETC.
916 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
VIKRAM NATH, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals assail the correctness of the judgment and order dated 
15.04.2019 passed by Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition 
Nos.31343 and 31370 of 2018(fi led by the respondents herein) whereby both 
the writ petitions were allowed and the First Information Report1 lodged by 
the present appellant dated 22.10.2018 registered as Case Crime No.0128 
of 2018 under sections 457, 380 and 506 of the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.