HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10268 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Sri J.P. Mishra, learned Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 4. The present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the Charge sheet no.01 of 2024 dated 22.01.2024 as well as entire proceedings of Case No.335 of 2025 (State Vs. Subhash and another), arising out of Case Crime No.146 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Ghaziabad. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on account of property dispute, instant FIR has been lodged and now they have amicably settled their dispute out of the court and entered into compromise. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.03.2025 directed the parties to appear before the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Subhash Pathak And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) court below and file the compromise, thereafter, the concerned court shall verify the compromise deed. 5. Pursuant to the said order dated 28.03.2025, the parties appeared before the court below and in their presence, after due verification of the contents of the compromise made between the parties, order has been passed by the court verifying the said compromise. A copy of the same is annexed as Annexure- S.A.-2 to the supplementary affidavit. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicant and opposite party no.2 have settled their private and civil dispute through compromise and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants and opposite party no. 2 do not want to pursue the case any further as stated by them. The matter has been mutually settled between the parties, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further. 9. Thus in view of the well settled principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Krishnappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka; 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 529, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and another; 2017 9 SCC 641, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana; 2003(4) SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Burea of Investigation and another; NA528 No. 10268 of 2025 2 (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 677, Gian Singh Vs. Stated of Punjab; (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab and another; (2014) Supreme Today 642, the proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed. 10. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed. September 17, 2025 Mini NA528 No. 10268 of 2025 3 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad