HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7494 of 2024 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. 1. Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra alongwith Utsav Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vipul Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and Sri Anuj Dayal, learned counsel for opposite party No.4. 2. This Court has passed the order dated 03.10.2024 which reads as under: "Heard Shri Utsav Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.M. Singh Royekwar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 and learned A.G.A. for the State. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of the F.I.R. dated 13.09.2024, registered at F.I.R/Case Crime No.0477 of 2024, under sections 406, 506, 420 and 409 of I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali Ayodhya, District-Ayodhya. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and opposite party no.4 have been in commercial relationship for the last seven years and several transactions have been entered into between the parties. It appears that on account of some misunderstanding in their commercial relationship, the F.I.R. under challenge giving rise to Case Crime No.0477 of 2024, under sections 406, 506, 420 and 409 of I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Ayodhya, District-Ayodhya has been registered. The petitioner has come up in the present writ petition assailing the F.I.R. inter alia on the ground that the matter is essentially in the nature of commercial dispute. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gaurav Mehrotra, Anjani Kumar Mishra, Utsav Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Anuj Dayal, S M Singh Royekwar Yogesh Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Others .....Respondent(s) Be that as it may, the parties have proposed to an amicable settlement through the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. The proposal is acceptable to the petitioner as well as opposite party no.4. Once the proposal for an amicable settlement is acceptable to both the parties, the criminal proceedings arising out of commercial relationship deserve to be curtailed for any further progress so that the commercial relationship between the parties is either settled finally or restituted for their benefit. In the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the consent of both the parties, we direct that the parties may appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 22.10.2024. The matter shall be assigned to an experienced Mediator by the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court so that the purpose of reference may not stand defeated. Mediation Centre of this Court shall facilitate the mediation proceedings so that the matter comes to its logical conclusion with the participation of parties in the proceedings. The outcome of the proceedings shall be forwarded to this Court at the earliest. List along with the Mediation Report. Till submission of the report by the Meditation Centre of this Court, the arrest of the petitioner and investigation in furtherance of the aforesaid F.I.R. shall remain stayed." 3. The matter was referred to mediation and conciliation centre and parties appeared before such centre. The report of mediator dated 18.12.2024 is on record, which says that "Mediation Completed. No agreement." It is admission at the bar that in the present case, mediation could not be succeeded. 4. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra has drawn attention towards the impugned FIR, which prima facie discloses that the issue is essentially in the nature of commercial dispute. In the FIR, there is reference of two agreements i.e. dated 14.07.2017 and 01.09.2022 between the parties. Both the agreements have been shown to the Court which have been enclosed with the writ petition as Annexure Nos. 2 & 3 respectively. In both the agreements there is CRLP No. 7494 of 2024 2 arbitration clause. Besides there is clause of termination of agreements and as per Sri Gaurav Mehrotra the agreement has not been terminated in terms of the aforesaid agreement inasmuch as three months prior notice has not been given by the opposite party No.4 terminating the agreement. Sri Mehrotra has further submitted that the parties have option to approach arbitration proceeding and appropriate steps would be taken strictly in accordance with law. 5. Sri Anuj Dayal, learned counsel for opposite party No.4 has also stated that the legal recourse may be adopted by parties strictly in accordance with law. 6. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and noting the fact that by means of an order dated 03.10.2024 (supra) investigation has been stayed by this Court, we find that the dispute is prima facie commercial in nature, therefore, without entering into the merits of the issue, we hereby dispose of this petition finally at the admission stage, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, directing the petitioner to participate in the investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 29.08.2025 to cooperate in the investigation and shall further cooperate in the investigation till completion of the investigation and filing of the police report before the competent court. 7. It is expected from the Investigating agency/Officer to conduct and conclude the investigation strictly in accordance with law by following the due procedure. The petitioner may not be unnecessarily harassed, if he participates in the investigation. 8. In view of the aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed of finally. August 25, 2025 Reena/- CRLP No. 7494 of 2024 3 (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench