HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 27585 of 2026 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Dheeraj Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for applicants and Sri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA. 2. The present application has been filed to quash the judgment dated 30.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhibramau, Kannauj in Criminal Case No.1764 of 2014 (State Vs. Raghuvir Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.289 of 2014, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Saurikh, District Kannauj, whereby appellants were convicted. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants has submitted that applicants were convicted in the said case and thereafter they preferred criminal appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Kannauj but during pendency of that criminal appeal, both the parties entered into a compromise and the same has also been verified by learned Sessions Judge on dated 31.08.2026 which has been appended with present application, this fact has also been ascertained and seconded by learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 4. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for opposite parties and as such, there would be no harm and error if the impugned conviction order may be quashed in light of the compromise. 5. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Ramawatar Vs. State of M.P., (2021) 10 SCR 499, has observed that even after a conviction is finalized, criminal proceedings can be set aside on the basis of settlement between the parties, if the offense is private in nature and non-heinous. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dheeraj Kumar Maurya, Kamlesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Narendra Kumar Shripal And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being quoted hereinbelow:- "13. We, however, put a further caveat that the powers under Article 142 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are exercisable in postconviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or the other Judicial forum. This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is subjudice before an appellate court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may before the final Court, is sinequanon to involve the superior court's plenary powers to do complete justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies, the annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise would be impermissible. Such an embargo is necessitated to prevent the accused from gaining an indefinite leverage, for such a settlement/compromise will always be loaded with lurking suspicion about its bona fide. We have already clarified that the purpose of these extra- ordinary powers is not to incentivise any hollowhearted agreements between the accused and the victim but to do complete justice by effecting genuine settlement(s)." 6. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the case, judgment dated 30.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhibramau, Kannauj in Criminal Case No.1764 of 2014 (State Vs. Raghuvir Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.289 of 2014, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Saurikh, District Kannauj, whereby appellants were convicted, are hereby quashed. 7. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed. September 28, 2026 Vivek Kr. NA528 No. 27585 of 2026 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad