Smt. Gunjan Sharma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2026)

Smt. Gunjan Sharma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application under Section 528 BNSS allowed; entire proceedings of Case No. 266 of 2016 (State versus Sharda Devi @ Yasoda Devi), arising out of Case Crime No. 321 of 2014, along with Charge-Sheets Nos. 174 and 174-A of 2015, quashed against the applicants.

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge-sheets (Nos. 174 and 174-A of 2015) and the entire proceedings of Case No. 266 of 2016 (State versus Sharda Devi @ Yasoda Devi), arising out of Case Crime No. 321 of 2014 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, should be quashed on the basis of the compromise dated 16-07-2025 between the applicants and opposite party no.2.

Court's answer

From the perusal of the record it is apparent that the parties have entered into compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on quashing of cases on the basis of settlement between the parties, the present case is a good case for exercising the Court's powers to quash the proceedings as prayed for by the applicants.

Key takeaways

The entire proceedings of Case No. 266 of 2016 (arising out of Case Crime No. 321 of 2014) are quashed.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Chawan Prakash, J.; decision dated April 20, 2026) allowed an application under Section 528 BNSS filed by Smt. Gunjan Sharma and 2 others seeking quashment of Charge-Sheet No. 174 of 2015 (dated 03-06-2015), Charge-Sheet No. 174-A of 2015 (dated 16-07-2015) and the entire proceedings of Case No. 266 of 2016 (State versus Sharda Devi @ Yasoda Devi), arising out of Case Crime No. 321 of 2014 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Sasani Gate, District Aligarh, pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate-III, Aligarh. The applicants and opposite party no.2 had entered into a compromise dated 16-07-2025, which was stated to have been verified by the concerned Trial Court; learned counsel for opposite party no.2 admitted the compromise and raised no objection to quashing. Relying on B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, (2008) 9 SCC 677; Manoj Sharma v. State, (2008) 16 SCC 1; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303; Shaifullah v. State of U.P., 2013 (83) ACC 278; and Parbatbhai Ahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Court recorded that the parties had settled their dispute amicably, held the case fit for exercise of quashing powers, quashed the entire proceedings, and allowed the application.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 42628 of 2025

Smt. Gunjan Sharma And 2 Others

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Pankaj Sharma, Shiv Murti Kushwaha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 79

HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

Heard Mr. Shiv Murti Kushwaha, learned Counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer:

"It is therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the application and quash the Charge-Sheet NO. 174 of 2015 dated 03-06-2015 & 174-A of 2015 dated 16-07-2015 AND entire proceeding of Case No. 266 of 2016 (State versus Sharda Devi @ Yasoda Devi) arising out of Case Crime No. 321 of 2014 under section 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station - Sasani Gate, District - Aligarh against the applicants pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate-III, Aligarh on the basis of compromise dated 16-07-2025 between the applicants and opposite party no.2. "

Learned Counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants and opposite party No.2 have compromised the dispute. It is further argued that the said compromise has also been verified by the concerned Trial Court, as such the proceedings against the applicants may be quashed.

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 admitted the fact of compromise and stated that he has no objection if the proceeding of the aforesaid case is quashed against the applicants.

From the perusal of the record it is apparent that parties have entered in to compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.

The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement

NA528 No. 42628 of 2025

2

arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Apex Court in the cases of (1) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another: (2003)4 SCC 675; (2) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2008) 9 SCC 677; (3) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; (4) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303; (5) Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278 and (6) Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 has held that the cases in which the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed.

From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the proceedings as prayed for by the applicants.

The entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed .

The present application is allowed .

(Chawan Prakash,J.)

April 20, 2026 Vijay

Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad