Jagdish Prasad Bansal vs State of Up and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

Jagdish Prasad Bansal vs State of Up and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the impugned charge-sheets/cognizance-summoning order and the entire proceedings of Case Crime No.73 of 2006 (Criminal Case No.96 of 2008) under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC against the applicant.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.96 of 2008 arising out of Case Crime No.73 of 2006 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC, pending against the applicant before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, may be quashed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the applicant and opposite party no.2.

Court's answer

Since the applicant and opposite party no.2 had entered into a compromise which was verified by the learned court concerned and whose verification report was on record, and taking note of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (AIR 2019 SC 1296) and the facts of the matter, it would be in the interest of justice that the impugned proceedings be quashed in respect of the applicant.

Ratio / Principle

Accordingly, the impugned charge-sheets/cognizance-summoning order and the entire proceedings of Case Crime No.73 of 2006, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Deoband, District Saharanpur, pending in the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, District Saharanpur, against the applicant, stand quashed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.) — Application U/S 482 No. 38116 of 2024, decided September 4, 2025. Jagdish Prasad Bansal applied under S. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.96 of 2008 (State Vs. Jagdish Prasad Bansal), arising out of Case Crime No.73 of 2006 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Deoband, District Saharanpur, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoband. The applicant and opposite party no.2 had entered into a compromise, verified by the learned court concerned, with the verification report filed via supplementary affidavit; learned AGA raised no objection. Taking note of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (AIR 2019 SC 1296), the court found quashing to be in the interest of justice, as no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings pending. The impugned charge-sheets/cognizance-summoning order and entire proceedings of Case Crime No.73 of 2006 against the applicant were quashed, and the application was allowed.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38116 of 2024

Jagdish Prasad Bansal

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ashish Goyal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 89

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

The case ks taken up on mentioning.

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

Heard Shri Ashish Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chandra Shekhar Singh, learned AGA for the State.

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of the entire proceedings, including proceedings of Criminal Case No.96 of 2008 (State Vs. Jagdish Prasad Bansal), arising out of Case Crime No.73 of 2006, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Deoband, District Saharanpur, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, District Saharanpur, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant and opposite party no.2 have entered into compromise and the same has been verified by the learned Court concerned and a report regarding the same has been filed along with the supplementary affidavit which is on the record. Learned counsel for the applicant further prays that in view of the compromise entered into between the applicants and opposite party no.2, the proceeding of the aforesaid case be quashed.

On the other hand, learned AGA for the State has no objection to the above submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

A482 No. 38116 of 2024

2

In view of the fact that applicant and opposite party no.2 have entered into compromised and the said compromise has already been verified by the learned court concerned and a report regarding verification of compromise is already on the record and taking note of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296 and the facts of the matter, it would be in the interest of justice that the impugned proceedings be quashed, in respect of the applicant. It was stated that in view of these facts and circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the impugned proceedings pending and thus, the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned charge-sheets/cognizancesummoning order and entire proceedings of Case Crime No.73 of 2006, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Deoband, District Saharanpur, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, District Saharanpur, against the applicant, is hereby quashed.

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed .

September 4, 2025 RKM

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad