HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9548 of 2025 Court No. - 92 (Sl.No.13) HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Sri Tushar Krishnan, Advocate holding brief of Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Aryan Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Markande Rai, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No.432 of 2022 (State vs. Honey Katyal), arising out of Case Crime No. 464 of 2023, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Noida Sector-24, District Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gautam Budh Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant and the husband of opposite party no.2 were the share holders of M/S Ecotech Printpac Pvt. Ltd. a major share holder in M/S. Regal Emporia Infra Pvt. Ltd. There was some dispute between them with regard to share held by both the parties after the death of husband of the opposite party no.2. For the aforesaid reason, an FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant herein. During pendency of the instant case before the trial court, the parties have settled their disputes amicably and a compromise dated 10.04.2025 was arrived at between the parties whereby the parties have settled all their disputes and the opposite party no.2 does not wish to prosecute the case any further against the applicant in view of the aforesaid settlement. Vide order dated 30.05.2025, this Court had directed Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Praveen Kumar Singh, Syed Imran Ibrahim Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Aryan Mishra, G.A. Honey Katyal .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) the parties to appear before the trial court concerned for verification of the compromise. 4. Today, learned counsel for the applicant has filed second supplementary affidavit bringing on record the certified copy of the order dated 02.08.2025 whereby the compromise arrived at between the parties has been duly verified by the trial court in presence of the parties. Thus, learned counsel for the applicant seeks quashing of the entire proceeding on the basis of the said compromise, which has been duly verified in presence of the parties by the trial court. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the aforesaid facts and he admits the factum of settlement of dispute and execution of compromise and its verification by the trial court. Learned AGA also does not oppose the prayer for quashing of the proceeding looking at the nature of dispute and the aforesaid compromise arrived at between the parties. 6. Having heard the submissions so made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. From the record of the case, it is apparent that the husband of opposite party no.2 was the share holder of M/S Ecotech Printpac Pvt. Ltd. a major share holder in M/S. Regal Emporia Infra Pvt. Ltd. After the death of husband of opposite party no.2, some dispute raised between the parties with regard to holding of share by them and during pendency of the case, the parties settled their disputes amicably and a compromise dated 10.04.2025 was arrived at between the parties whereby the parties, which has been duly verified by the trial court vide order 02.08.2025 in terms of the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by this Court. In view of the compromise entered into between the parties, there is remote and bleak chances of conviction of the applicant herein. With the aforesaid settlement, the peace will prevail in the society and continuance of the aforesaid criminal proceedings will not serve any fruitful purpose in view of the settlement of disputes between parties. 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 NA528 No. 9548 of 2025 2 466 : 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. 8. In view thereof, the instant application is accordingly allowed and the proceedings of Case No.432 of 2022 (State vs. Honey Katyal), arising out of Case Crime No. 464 of 2023, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Noida Sector-24, District Gautam Budh Nagar, are hereby quashed. October 6, 2025 Ashish Pd. NA528 No. 9548 of 2025 3 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad