Vijay Jhanjee vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

Vijay Jhanjee vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application disposed of with directions: both parties to appear before the Trial Court with the compromise deed and certified copy of the order within three weeks; Trial Court to verify the compromise in accordance with law, after hearing both parties and recording their statements on fulfilment of its terms, preferably within three months; no coercive action against the applicant till verification; liberty to approach this Court again for quashing thereafter.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 85 of 2004, renumbered as Complaint Case No. 5290 of 2013 (M/s Varun Beverages Ltd. v. Vijay Jhanjee and others) under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhata, District Mathura, are liable to be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, both parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court along with the compromise deed and certified copy of the order within three weeks; the Trial Court is expected to fix a date for verification of the compromise and, after ensuring the presence of the parties and giving opportunity of hearing to both sides, pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, preferably within three months from production of the certified copy, recording the statements of the parties as to fulfilment of the terms of the original compromise deed.

Ratio / Principle

Till verification of the compromise between the parties by the Court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

Key takeaways

Upon verification, the parties will be permitted to obtain certified copy of the report and the compromise, and it will be open to the applicant to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.ratio¶17
The Court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.obiter¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Nand Prabha Shukla, J.) disposed of an application under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 85 of 2004, renumbered as Complaint Case No. 5290 of 2013 (M/s Varun Beverages Ltd. v. Vijay Jhanjee and others) under Sections 420 and 406 IPC at PS Chhata, District Mathura, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhata. Counsel for the applicant stated that the parties had amicably settled their disputes vide compromise dated 26.09.2025, entered by Digamber Singh, Assistant Manager (Sales), duly authorized by Letter of Authority dated 09.09.2025 issued by M/s Varun Beverages Ltd.; the learned A.G.A. submitted that the Trial Court ought to verify the compromise. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court directed both parties to appear before the Trial Court with the compromise deed and certified copy of the order within three weeks; the Trial Court to fix a date for verification of the compromise and, after ensuring the parties' presence and hearing both sides, pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, preferably within three months, recording the parties' statements on fulfilment of the compromise terms. Till such verification, no coercive action was to be taken against the applicant, with liberty reserved to approach the Court again for quashing. The Court noted the Hon'ble Apex Court's observation in Delhi Race Club vs. State of U.P. and another, 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 689, that Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot exist simultaneously in the same set of facts.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40887 of 2025

Vijay Jhanjee

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Anup Shukla, Devansh Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 80

HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 85 of 2004 renumbered as Complaint Case No. 5290 of 2013 (M/s Varun Beverages Ltd. v. Vijay Jhanjee and others) under Sections 420 and 406 IPC at PS Chhata, District Mathura pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhata, District Mathura.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the parties have amicably settled their disputes vide compromise dated 26.09.2025, which has been placed as "Annexure No.-7" to the application, entered between applicant No. 1, Vijay Jhanjee @ Jhansi S/o Jwahar Lal Jhanjee and Digamber Singh Assistant Manager (Sales), who has been duly authorized by Letter of Authority dated 09.09.2025 issued by M/s Varun Beverages Ltd. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the Court concerned and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of process of law.

Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Delhi Race Club vs. State of U.P. and another, 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 689 has observed that Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot exist simultaneously in the same set of facts.

Learned A.G.A., however, submits that it is the Trial Court, which has to

NA528 No. 40887 of 2025

2

verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the applicants may approach the concerned Court and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law.

In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, both the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court along with compromise deed as well certified copy of this order within three weeks from today. It is expected that Court concerned may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of the parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the Court concerned shall also record the statements of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not.

The Court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicant to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

Till verification of compromise between the parties by the Court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of .

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

October 27, 2025 Aditya Tripathi

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