Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134603 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (Sl. No.16) Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44338 of 2024 Applicant :- Naseem And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Yadav,Yashpal Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 22.11.2021 as well as the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 464/9 of 2020 (Liaquat Ali vs. Naseem and others), under Sections 120B, 420 IPC, P.S. Kakrauli, District Muzaffarnagar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the instant case, the dispute between the applicants and the opposite party no.2 was with regard to financial transaction between them for which a civil suit was also filed by the opposite party no.2. During the pendency of the aforesaid case, the parties have settled their dispute amicably and a compromise was executed between the parties. On the basis of the said compromise, a civil suit no. 147 of 2020 was also disposed of in terms of the compromise vide order dated 02.04.2024, which was filed by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant nos. 1 and 2. Subsequent thereto in the instant proceedings also, the parties have settled their dispute amicably, on the basis of which the instant application was filed by the applicants herein. Vide order dated 01.05.2025, this Court has directed the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the compromise arrived at between the parties. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the parties appeared before the court below on 15.05.2025 and in presence of the parties, the compromise arrived at between the parties dated 07.12.2024 has been verified by the trial court and a report to the said effect has been sent to this Court by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Muzaffarnagar, which is available on record. In view of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the applicants seeks quashing of the entire proceeding of the instant case. 4. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute the aforesaid facts specifically on the basis of the trial court report with regard to verification of the compromise and looking at the nature of dispute, which was financial in nature and has been amicably settled between the parties, learned counsel for the applicants did not oppose the prayer for quashing of the entire proceeding against the applicants. 5. Having heard the submissions so made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is has carefully gone through the record of the case. From the record, it is apparent that there was a dispute between the parties with regard to the financial transaction taken place between them, for which in addition to the instant complaint case, the opposite party no.2 has also filed a civil suit. The proceeding of civil suit has also been disposed of in view of the settlement between the parties vide order dated 02.04.2024 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jansath and during pendency of the instant case, the parties have settled their dispute on 07.12.2024. A compromise was executed, which is on record as annexure-6 to the instant application and in terms of the order passed by this Court on 01.05.2025, the trial court has already verified the said compromise dated 07.12.2024 in presence of the parties on 15.05.2025. The report of the said effect is also sent to this Court. 6. In view of the settlement / compromise, which has been duly verified and peace will prevail in the society consequently, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the proceeding pending against the applicants. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : Prabatbhai Aahir Alias Prabatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and Another , (2017) 9 SCC 641 and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the instant application deserves to be allowed. 7. In view thereof, the instant application is accordingly allowed and the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 464/9 of 2020 (Liaquat Ali vs. Naseem and others), under Sections 120B, 420 IPC, P.S. Kakrauli, District Muzaffarnagar, are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Ashish Pd. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad