HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5816 of 2020 Court No. - 81 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record. 2. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1137 of 2010 (State Vs. Santosh Kumar Saxena), arising out of Case Crime No. 2036 of 2009, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., Police Station-Civil Lines, District- Budaun, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) F.T.C./CAW, Budaun, on the basis of compromised so arrived at between the parties. 3. While entertaining the present criminal application, a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed the order dated 4th August, 2026 directing the applicant to file the compromise so entered into between the parties before the trial court for its verification and the trial court was inturn directed to verify the same. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the trial court vide order dated 31st August, 2026 has verified the compromise so arrived at between the parties, a copy of which has been brought on record along with the supplementary affidavit filed on 9th September, 2026. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the compromised so arrived at between the parties and the same has also been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case be may be Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Praveen Kumar Srivastava, Vindeshwari Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party(s): Arvind Kumar Sahu, G.A. Santosh Kumar Saxena .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And Anr .....Opposite Party(s) quashed by this Court. 6. Learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed. 7. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court: (i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675, (ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677, (iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, (iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303, (v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466, (vi).Dimpey Gujral W/o Vivek Gujral & Others Vs. Union Territory Thru. Administrator Chandigarh & Others; (2013) 11 SCC 497, (vii). H.N. Pandakumar Vs. State of Karnataka; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 38 , and (viii). Naushey Ali & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another; (2025) 4 SCC 78. 8. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278. in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute. A482 No. 5816 of 2020 2 10. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1137 of 2010 (State Vs. Santosh Kumar Saxena), arising out of Case Crime No. 2036 of 2009, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., Police Station-Civil Lines, District-Budaun, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) F.T.C./CAW, Budaun are hereby quashed. 11. The present application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. September 16, 2026 Sushil/- A482 No. 5816 of 2020 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad