A482/16327/2019 of ANKUR JAIN Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANR

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16327 of 2019 Court No. - 73 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present 428 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 23.3.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.1815 of 2017 (Bijendra Kumar Jain Vs. Ankur Jain), pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, under section 354 of I.P.C., Station Police Baraut, District Baghpat. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant and opposite party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court. Applicant approached this Hon'ble Court by filing this 482 application with prayer to quash the proceedings on terms of compromise entered between the parties, the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 4.11.2025 sent the matter to trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court vide order dated 18.11.2025 verified the parties as well as compromise application. He further submitted that applicant and opposite party no.2 compromised the matter and opposite party No.2 does not want to proceed the matter against the applicant. He further submitted that applicant and opposite party no.2 have settled through compromise their dispute and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicant. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicant and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nipun Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Gaurav Kakkar, Sumit Suri Ankur Jain .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And Anr .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed. 5. Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute out of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC, 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayanan (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non-compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278], in which, law expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case. 8. Accordingly, the impugned   summoning order dated 23.3.2019, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.1815 of 2017 (Bijendra Kumar Jain Vs. Ankur Jain), pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, under section 354 of I.P.C., Station Police Baraut, District Baghpat  is hereby quashed. 9. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly allowed. March 19, 2026 KJ A482 No. 16327 of 2019 2 (Deepak Verma,J.)