Vinayak Pal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

Vinayak Pal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the summons order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the learned C.J. J.D. F.T.C., Court No.50, Lucknow and of charge-sheet no.01/2022 in Case Crime No.078/2021; the compromise deed is to be made part of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the summons order dated 09.11.2022 (under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 406 IPC read with Section 3/4 D.P. Act) and charge-sheet no.01/2022 in Case Crime No.078/2021 should be quashed on the ground that the parties have arrived at a compromise/settlement.

Court's answer

In view of the parties having settled their dispute outside the Court by compromise, and the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, the application under Section 482 is allowed and the summons order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the C.J. J.D. F.T.C., Court No.50, Lucknow together with charge-sheet no.01/2022 are quashed.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in B. S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma, Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, it is appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to quash the criminal proceedings, as continuance of the proceedings would be an exercise in futility.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Shree Prakash Singh, J.: Application U/S 482 by Vinayak Pal and 4 others allowed. The summons order dated 09.11.2022 of the learned C.J. J.D. F.T.C., Court No.50, Lucknow (applicants summoned under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 406 IPC read with Section 3/4 D.P. Act; P.S. Mahila Thana, District Lucknow; Case No.118975/2022, arising out of Case Crime No.078/2021, State Vs. Vinayak Pal and others) and charge-sheet no.01/2022 were quashed because the parties had settled their dispute amicably by a compromise (placed on record as Annexure-5 and verified by the learned I/c Civil Judge (J.D.) F.T.C. (C.A.W.), Lucknow vide order dated 09.05.2025 in compliance of this Court's order dated 29.04.2025). Relying on the ratio of B. S. Joshi (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh (2010) 15 SCC 118 and Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court held continuance of the proceedings would be an exercise in futility. The compromise deed was directed to be made part of the order.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3630 of 2025

Vinayak Pal And 4 Others

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Siddhant Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Awadhesh Mishra, Ravindra Kumar Singh

Court No. - 14

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of the applicants, is taken on record.

The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the learned C.J. J.D. F.T.C., Court No.50, Lucknow by means of which the applicants have been summoned under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 406 IPC read with Section 3/4 D.P. Act lodged at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Lucknow in Case No.118975/2022, arising out of Case Crime No.078/2021 (State Vs. Vinayak Pal and others) and to quash the charge-sheet no.01/2022 filed in the aforesaid case crime number on the ground that the parties have arrived at a compromise/settlement.

Learned counsels for the parties submit that the parties have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and they have arrived at a compromise. The compromise entered into between the parties has been placed on record as Annexure-5 to the application. The parties have confirmed the terms of the compromise. The compromise has been verified between the parties by learned I/c Civil Judge (J.D.) F.T.C. (C.A.W.), Lucknow vide order dated 09.05.2025 in compliance of the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by this Court in the present application.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

A482 No. 3630 of 2025

2

Considering the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of B. S. Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another :(2003) 4 SCC 675 , Nikhil Merchant versus C.B.I. and another : (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma versus State and others : (2008) 16 SCC 1 , Gian Singh versus Station of Punjab: (2010) 15 SCC 118 and Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another: (2014) 6 SCC 466 , it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case to quash the criminal proceedings as continuance of the proceedings in pursuance of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility.

In view of the fact that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court by way of compromise arrived at between the parties and law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, the instant application is allowed and the order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the learned C.J. J.D. F.T.C., Court No.50, Lucknow by means of which the applicants have been summoned under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 406 IPC read with Section 3/4 D.P. Act lodged at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Lucknow in Case No.118975/2022, arising out of Case Crime No.078/2021 (State Vs. Vinayak Pal and others) and the charge-sheet no.01/2022, are hereby quashed .

The compromise deed shall be made part of this order.

Consign to record.

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

September 3, 2025 MVS/-

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench