NA528/41462/2025 of DEEPAK MUKHERJEE Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER on 13 May 2026

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

3. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S.. has been filed to quash the criminal proceedings in Case No. 4157 of 2013 (State Vs. Deeepak Mukherjee), arising out of Case Crime no. 910 of 2012, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Izzatnagar, District Bareilly, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), F.T.C., Bareilly including the charge sheet dated 17.10.2012 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 12.07.2013, on the basis of compromise dated 18.09.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant and opposite party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. Applicant approached this Court by filing this application under Section 528 BNSS with prayer to quash the proceedings in terms of compromise entered between the parties and this Court vide order dated 16.12.2025 directed the parties to appear before the trial court for verification of the parties and compromise application. Trial court vide order dated 02.01.2026 verified the parties as well as compromise application. He further submitted that applicant and opposite party no.2 have settled their dispute through compromise and, as such, opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicant. Opposite party no.2 is ready Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ali Hasan, Istiyaq Ali Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jagriti Pandey, Ram Chandra Deepak Mukherjee .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)

to withdraw the prosecution of the applicant and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute outside the court, hence, no reason to proceed further.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC, 641, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayanan (2019) 5 SCC 688, wherein Hon'ble 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. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278], in which, law expounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.

8. Accordingly, criminal proceedings in Case No. 4157 of 2013 (State Vs. Deeepak Mukherjee), arising out of Case Crime no. 910 of 2012, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Izzatnagar, District Bareilly, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), F.T.C., Bareilly including the charge sheet dated 17.10.2012 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 12.07.2013, are hereby quashed in terms of compromise dated 18.09.2025.

9. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed. May 14, 2026 Rmk. NA528 No. 41462 of 2025 2 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad