Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81103 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16027 of 2025 Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar Kashyap,V.P. Singh Kashyap Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Sri V.P. Singh Kashyap, lerned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri J.B. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. This is an application filed U/s 528 BNSS for quashing the entire proceeding in criminal case no. 342 of 2024 (2013) under Section 138 of N.I. Act P.S. Kotwali, District Bareilly and the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Bareilly. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that complaint a was lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 25.10.2023 U/s 138 of N.I. Act with an allegation that a cheque of Rs. 3,20,000/- stood dishonoured and a compromise stood entered into between the parties on 27.06.2023 wherein the amount of Rs. 3,20,000/- was paid. However, after a period of more than one year, the opposite party no.2 raised an objection against the compromise deed with an allegations that the opposite party no.2 family members were threatened to be killed in case the compromise is not entered into between the parties. On the said application, the court of Additional Civil Judge (JD) court no.13 on 16.04.2025 cancelling the compromise dated 27.06.2013. 4. Questioning the said order, the applicant has filed the present application. It is further submitted that the said compromise stood entered into between the parties in the presence of the parties and their counsels and further the amount in question stood transferred by the applicant upon opposite party no.2, but the opposite party no.2 is acting cleverly and on the basis of false and fictitious concocted story, the terms and the condition of the compromise are not being honoured. It is further submitted that the order of cancelling the compromise be set aside. 5. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submitted that from the perusal of the impugned order would reveal that a specific finding has been recorded that the compromise has not been verified and until and unless the compromise stands verified, it cannot be acted to the detriment to the opposite party no.2. 6. Having heard and after perusing the record, the sole question which would arise to the extent of judicial intervention in the present proceeding. Apparently, the allegation of the applicant is that the compromise stood entered between the parties and the presence of the counsels. However, the court finds that a specific finding has been recorded that the compromise was not verified. Once the compromise was not verified, then it cannot be in any manner whatsoever be a ground to forestall the right of the opposite party no.2 to lodge appropriate proceeding for cancellation of the compromise. The court below has passed the order which cannot be said to be illegal. The application is accordingly rejected, leaving it open for the applicant to take legal recourse as permissible under law. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 C. MANI (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad