HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 2393 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Supplementary counter affidavit, filed today, is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Sharique Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikash Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State as well as Shri Saurabh Kumar Pandey, counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 3. The counsel for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they do not propose to file any further affidavits, thus, with the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage. 4. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the order dated 24.12.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge, F.T.C.-01, Azamgarh, in Criminal Revision No. 103/2024 "Shami Anwar Versus State of U.P. and another", Police Station- Kotwali, District- Azamgarh and order dated 02.04.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 12, Azamgarh in Complaint Case No. 15155/2021 u/s 138 N.I. Act, "(Mohd. Asim Khan vs. Mohd. Shami Anwar". 5. The case of the applicant is that a piece of a land which is a subject matter in the present proceedings is owned by the opposite party no. 2 and her sister, Farhadiba and with respect to certain dispute and difference so occasioned between them proceedings in O.S. No. 610 of 2018 came to be instituted which resulted in a decree in the shape of a compromise. Thereafter two agreements entered into with respect to the said property. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant has Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sharique Ahmed Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rishabh Agarwal, Saurabh Kumar Pandey Sami Anwar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) tendered the share of the sister of the opposite party no. 2 to the tune of Rs. 75 lakhs which has been disputed by the counsel for the opposite party no. 2, however, with respect to the opposite party no. 2, the total amount due and payable was Rs. 75 lakhs which Rs. 15 lakhs had already been paid and with respect to Rs. 60 lakhs which was decided between the parties by virtue of a compromise deed dated 20.05.2019 thereafter on 01.11.2020, an agreement came to be entered into between the parties that the total amount due and payable by the applicant to the opposite party no. 2 would be Rs. 60 lakhs and Rs. 2 lakhs was being handed over and with respect to Rs. 18 lakhs, the same would be paid at the time of registry and rest of Rs.40 lakhs after the cancellation of the agreement to sell. On 15.11.2022, an agreement stood entered into between the parties which was filed before the court below. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited attention towards page 95 of the paperbook submits that the said agreement stood noticed by the court below in the order-sheet dated 15.11.2022. However, with respect to dishonour of the three cheques of Rs. 20 lakhs each, proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act stood initiated by the opposite party no. 2. Pursuant whereto summoning order came to be passed. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that an application came to be preferred by the applicant before the trial court on 08.09.2023 for acquitting the applicant in view of the compromise so entered into between the parties on 15.11.2022. The said application came to be rejected by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 12, Azamgarh against which the applicant preferred a Criminal Revision No. 103 of 2024 which came to be rejected on 24.12.2024 by the Additional Session Judge, F.T.C.-01, Azamgarh. 6. Questioning the said orders, the applicant has been filed the present application. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that first of all once the opposite party no. 2 himself voluntarily entered into compromise and the same became the part and the parcel of the order-sheet dated 15.11.2022 then in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Gimpex Pvt. Ltd. v. Manoj Goel; Criminal Appeal No. 1068 of 2021, the original complaint looses his efficacy and the proceedings cannot be continued on the basis of the original complaint and the parties have to proceed with the remedy avaiable under law in settlement agreement. He further submits that NA528 No. 2393 of 2025 2 even the compromise dated 15.11.2022 is still in-existence though an application for cancellation of the same has been preferred by the opposite party no. 2 on 26.06.2023. He submits that mere pendency of an application for cancellation of the agreement would not in any manner whatsoever be a ground to hold that the compromise stood cancelled. He however submits that the trial court in its order dated 02.04.2024 and 24.12.2024 have not considered the said aspect of the matter. Submission is that the court below had proceeded to decide the case as while interpreting provisions of the contract which is not permissible. He however submits that a direction be issued to the court below to decide the objection preferred by the opposite party no. 2 for cancellation of the settlement agreement which is stated to be filed on 26.06.2023. 8. Learned State Law Officer as well as Shri Saurabh Kumar Pandey, counsel for the opposite party no. 2 so far as the challenge made to the orders dated 02.04.2024 and 24.04.2024 passed by the trial court and the revisional court are concerned, they are perfectly valid in accordance with law, however, according to them, it would be justifiable that the application seeking cancellation compromise dated 15.11.2022 preferred on 26.06.2023 be decided. He, however, submits that a direction be issued to the court below and subject to the fate of the same, it shall be open for the parties to again take recourse as permissible under law. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully. 10. Apparently, the bone of contention between the parties is with regard to the compromise dated 15.11.2022. On one hand, it is the stand of the applicant that the compromise dated 15.11.2022 ought to have been taken into account while closing the proceedings but on the other hand, the submission of opposite party no. 2 is that before filing of an application for dropping the said proceedings on 08.09.2023 prior to it on 26.06.2023, an application for cancellation of the compromise dated 15.11.2022 had been preferred. 11. In the opinion of the Court, whatever might be once an application seeking cancellation of the compromise dated 15.11.2022 has been preferred on 26.06.2023 then the same is to be decided this way or that way, NA528 No. 2393 of 2025 3 particularly, when it is a relevant aspect of the entire dispute and difference between the parties. 12. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the matter, the application stands disposed of requiring the court below to decide the application dated 26.06.2023 preferred by the opposite party no. 2 for cancellation of the compromise dated 15.11.2022 by 31.10.2025. 13. For facilitation on early disposal, the parties should submit the certified copy of the order by 09.10.2025. 14. Till 31.10.2025 or till the disposal of the said application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in pursuance of order dated 24.12.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge, F.T.C.-01, Azamgarh, in Criminal Revision No. 103/2024 "Shami Anwar Versus State of U.P. and another", Police Station- Kotwali, District- Azamgarh and order dated 02.04.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 12, Azamgarh in Complaint Case No. 15155/2021 u/s 138 N.I. Act, "(Mohd. Asim Khan vs. Mohd. Shami Anwar". 15. In the event of default of any of the conditions by the applicant as referred to above, the protection shall stand vacated without reference to the Bench. 16. It is always open for the parties to take legal recourse, subject to the fate of the outcome of the application dated 26.06.2023 for cancellation of compromise application. September 23, 2025 A. Prajapati NA528 No. 2393 of 2025 4 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad