HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20091 of 2011 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. Re: Crl. Misc. Impleadment Application No. 2 of 2025 1. An impleadment application has been filed to implead the son of opposite party no.2 in the array of parties as the opposite party no.2 Smt. Shakuntala Devi has passed away. 2. Application is allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/opposite party no.2 is permitted to incorporate necessary amendment in the array of parties during the course of the day. Re: Application U/s. 482 Cr.P.C. 1. Heard Sri G.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ratnesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State respondents. 2. This application under Section 482 CrPC has been preferred for quashing the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 58 of 2007 pending before the court of learned A.C.J.M., Hapur, Ghaziabad under sections 465, 467, 471, 386, 420, 384/34 IPC, P.S. Hapur Nagar, District Ghaziabad. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant and opposite party no. 2 entered into a compromise in the year 2011 but the same could not be verified by the Court concerned as the proceedings before the trial court were stayed by the order of this Court. It is further submitted that while the proceedings were stayed, opposite party no.2 Smt. Shakuntala Devi passed away in the year 2022. An agreement to sell entered into between the parties for execution of the sale deed and now the matter is amicably settled as the money taken by the applicant has been returned back Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nitin Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Sunil Vashishtha Anil Kumar Jain And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) to the opposite party no.2. It is submitted that due to lapse of long time and the fact that the matter pertaining to a civil dispute has been compromised between the parties, proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed against the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State have no objection to the above submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 5. In view of the fact that the matter pertains to a civil dispute regarding which, an agreement to sell has been entered into between the applicant and opposite party no.2 (now deceased). Subsequently, the matter has been compromised between the parties and the money is said to have been returned to opposite party no.2, keeping in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, AIR 2019 SC 1296 and the facts of the matter, it would be in the interest of justice that the impugned proceedings be quashed in respect of the applicant. 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. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 58 of 2007 pending before the court of learned A.C.J.M., Hapur, Ghaziabad under sections 465, 467, 471, 386, 420, 384/34 IPC, P.S. Hapur Nagar, District Ghaziabad are hereby quashed. 7. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed. September 22, 2025 Madhurima A482 No. 20091 of 2011 2 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad