Allowed¶8

Gyanendra Brothers v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2025A482/40773/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 71), Raj Beer Singh, J., order dated 5.4.2025, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:49492 — Application U/S 482 No. 40773 of 2024, Gyanendra Brothers v. State of U.P. and Another — quashing of complaint case (ss. 406, 420 IPC, P.S. Anwarganj, Kanpur Nagar) on basis of verified compromise in a business-transaction dispute; counsel: Neetu Singh, Rajan Tripathi for applicant; G.A. for State; application allowed, proceedings quashed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3771 of 2016 (M/s A.J. Brothers & Company v. Gyanendra Brothers and Company) under Sections 406, 420 IPC pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate-5th, Kanpur Nagar, on the basis of the verified compromise between the parties. ¶8

Gyanendra Brothers Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 3771 of 2016 under Sections 406, 420 IPC pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate-5th, Kanpur Nagar, can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶2

Court's answer

It is well settled that in appropriate cases criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

On the facts — the dispute related to a business transaction, the parties had compromised and paid the dues of opposite party no.2, the complainant did not wish to pursue the proceedings, there was nothing to indicate criminal antecedents, and the compromise had been verified by the trial court — it was in the interest of justice that the impugned proceedings be quashed.

¶6

Key takeaways

The entire impugned proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3771 of 2016 against the applicant were quashed and the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise — application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by accused in Complaint Case No. 3771 of 2016 under Sections 406, 420 IPC, Police Station Anwarganj, District Kanpur Nagar — dispute arose out of a business transaction and parties amicably settled, entire dues of opposite party no.2 having been paid — compromise filed before the Trial Court pursuant to the High Court's order and duly verified, report on record — complainant did not wish to pursue the proceedings and nothing indicated criminal antecedents of the parties — quashing would have no adverse impact on society — held, in the interest of justice, entire impugned proceedings against the applicant quashed and application allowed (Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh, J.).

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49492

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40773 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Gyanendra Brothers Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Neetu Singh,Rajan Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3771 of 2016 (M/s A.J. Brothers & Company v. Gyanendra Brothers and Company), under Sections 406, 420 I.P.C., Police StationAnwarganj, District- Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate- 5th, Kanpur Nagar, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that dispute between the parties relates to business transaction and now both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the entire dues of opposite party no.2 has been paid. In pursuance of order of this Court, both the parties have filed compromise before the Trial Court which has duly been verified. The report of compromise is on record. 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.

¶9

Learned AGA has no objection if the parties compromised the

¶10

matter.

¶11

I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

¶12

It is well settled that in appropriate cases criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise. In the instant case, the matter relates to business transaction. If parties compromise the matter, it would not have adverse impact on society. The complainant of the case does not want to pursue the impugned proceedings. There is nothing to indicate that parties have any criminal antecedents. The compromise filed by the parties before the trial court, has already been verified by the court concerned. Considering facts of the matter, it would be in the interest of justice that the impugned proceedings be quashed.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid, entire impugned proceedings of the aforesaid case against applicant are hereby quashed .

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 5.4.2025 Rama Kant

¶16

Digitally signed by :- RAMA KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gyanendra Brothers v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyanendra Brothers 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases