Vivek Kumar Bansal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:128961

Court No. - 72

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32730 of 2024

Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Bansal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwini Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant/opposite party no. 2, and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the Summoning Order dated 06.10.2023 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate /Civil Judge (S.D.) Fast Track Court, Meerut by which applicants have been summoned u/s 406/420 I.P.C. as well as the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 23942 of 2023 (State of U.P. Versus Vivek Kumar Bansal and another) and Criminal Case No. 2392 of 2023 (State of U.P. versus Vivek Kumar Bansal) related to Case Crime No.503 of 2020, State of U.P. Versus Vivek Kumar Bansal and another, Police Station- Pallavpuram, District- Meerut, pending before the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (S.D.) Fast Track Court, Meerut.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and entered into a compromise. Applicants 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 13.02.2025 passed following order:-

¶10

"Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the parties have settled their dispute with regard to offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 IPC by way of compromise deed dated 04.03.2024. Certified copy of the compromise is Annexure-4 to this application.

¶11

Both the parties will appear before the court concerned within six weeks for verification of compromise.

¶12

The court concerned is directed to verify the same.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant will file a supplementary affidavit annexing the certified copy of the verified compromise and verified proceedings of compromise till the next date of listing.

¶14

Put up on 05.06.2025 as a fresh.

¶15

Interim order, if any, is extended till the next date of listing. "

¶16

In pursuance of order of this Court dated 13.02.2025, the Trial court vide order dated 24.04.2025 verified the parties as well as compromise application through their counsels Verification report dated 24.04.2025 has been filed by learned counsel for the applicants by supplementary affidavit. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 compromised the matter and opposite party No.2 does not want to proceed the matter against the applicants. He further submitted that applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled through compromise their private and civil dispute and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants 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.

¶18

Learned AGA submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute out of the court, hence, no reason to proceed further.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

Accordingly, the impugned Summoning Order dated 06.10.2023 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate /Civil Judge (S.D.) Fast Track Court, Meerut by which applicants have been summoned u/s 406/420 I.P.C. as well as the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 23942 of 2023 (State of U.P. Versus Vivek Kumar Bansal and another) and Criminal Case No. 2392 of 2023 (State of U.P. versus Vivek Kumar Bansal) related to Case Crime No.503 of 2020, State of U.P.

¶22

Versus Vivek Kumar Bansal and another, Police Station- Pallavpuram, DistrictMeerut, pending before the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (S.D.) Fast Track Court, Meerut, are hereby quashed.

¶23

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly allowed .

¶24

Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Aditya

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ADITYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vivek Kumar Bansal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Kumar Bansal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases