HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19467 of 2014 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J. 1. Heard Sri Anindya Malhotra, Advocate, holding brief of Priyanka Midha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dharmendra Raj Singhal, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the charge sheet No. 525 of 2011 dated 30.11.2011, as well as cognizance order dated 04.01.2012, Case No. 21 of 2012, arising out of Case Crime No. 939 of 2011, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sector-58, NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 that the dispute between the applicant and complainant opposite party No. 2 regarding transaction of money. He has further submitted that parties have entered into settlement and applicant has already paid Rs. 25,00,000/- to opposite party No. 2. A copy of Settlement Agreement has been filed as annexure-1 to the short counter affidavit dated 14.09.2025 filed by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 4. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has next submitted that all the disputes and differences have been settled between the parties. At this stage, learned counsel further submitted that continuation of the proceedings of the aforesaid case will be an abuse of process of law. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has also placed reliance on the law laid down by Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012), 10 SCC 303, B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Priyanka Midha, Ram M. Kaushik Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dinesh Singh Yadav, Nafees Ahmad Lourenco D Souza .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) SCC 675 and Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582. 5. In Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur & Others v. State of Gujarat & another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, after referring the various precedents on the subject, summarized the broad principles relating to the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code as under:- "16.4. While the inherent poser of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated." 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA have no objection if the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the trial court is quashed. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record. 8. In all the aforesaid cases, the Apex Court has laid down the law that criminal proceedings may be quashed even in non-compoundable cases by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction to restore peace between the parties and in case the justice so demands. According to Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the offence involve private dispute between the parties of commercial nature or matrimonial dispute and it is not related to heinous offence, the proceedings may be quashed. 9. The facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove are peculiar in the present case. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that the offence is not of serious nature as the matter relates to offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 504, 506 of I.P.C. As such, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, no mental depravity is involved in the case. If the request of the parties is denied, it will be amounting to only adding one more criminal case to the already overburdened criminal courts. 10. Since the dispute between the parties has been amicably and mutually settled, no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting to continue the criminal case pending before the trial court and it would simply be a waste of time if the aforesaid case is permitted to continue till its logical conclusion. A482 No. 19467 of 2014 2 11. In view of the above, the Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. 12. The entire proceedings of charge sheet No. 525 of 2011 dated 30.11.2011, as well as cognizance order dated 04.01.2012, Case No. 21 of 2012, arising out of Case Crime No. 939 of 2011, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sector-58, NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar, against the applicant is quashed in terms of settlement arrived at between the parties. October 13, 2025 v.k.updh. A482 No. 19467 of 2014 3 (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad