Allahabad High Court
Anoop Kumar Jaiswal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 March, 2026
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:66040
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24295 of 2024
Anoop Kumar Jaiswal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Subodh Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Satyendra Kumar Gupta
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Subodh Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Satyendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.
3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant- Anoop Kumar Jaiswal, with the prayer to allow the present application and quash the entire proceeding as well as order dated 10.12.2013 as well as further proceeding of Complaint Case No.1392 of 2008 (Iftikhar Zaman Vs. Anoop Kumar Jaiswal), under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Kareli, District Allahabad/Prayagraj, pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M., Court No.7, Allahabad. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the further proceeding of the aforesaid case, during the pendency of present application.
4. Perused the order dated 16.03.2026 of this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in compliance of the said order he had received back demand draft from the office of the Registrar General of this Court which has now been re-validated and new Demand Draft No. 378777 dated 25.03.2026 issued by State Bank of India, High Court, Allahabad drawn in favour of Iftikhar Zaman for Rs. 50,000/- has been reissued which has been produced before the Court who submits that since the next date fixed before the trial court was 13.05.2025 the parties did not appear earlier and thus the same could not be handed over to them and the same be handed over to learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 appearing today in Court.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has no objection to the same.
7. The photocopy of the demand draft duly verified by learned counsels for the parties has been produced before the Court which is taken on record.
8. The said demand draft has been handed over today in Court by learned counsel for the applicant to learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
9. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 may also sign the order-sheet in lieu of receiving of the said demand draft.
10. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that he has received the remaining amount as to be paid to the opposite party no.2 in compliance of the settlement agreement dated 21.08.2025 entered between the parties before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. He shall be proceeding to file a withdrawal application for Complaint Case No. 1392 / 2008 within 15 days from today as decided between the parties and mentioned in paragraph 7 (e) of the said settlement agreement.
11. The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court vide order dated 05.12.2024 for making an effort between the parties for settling their disputes amicably.
12. As per report of Mediation Centre dated 21.08.2025 the parties have entered into settlement dated 21.08.2025 in view of Interim Settlement Agreements dated 22.05.2025 & 17.07.2025 and have amicably settled their dispute and further agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them.
13. As per the office report dated 10.03.2025 a report from the Mediation Centre of this Court is on record.
14. From perusal of the report of Mediation Centre of this Court, it appears that in pursuance of the said order the mediation proceedings were taken up which ended in a settlement dated 21.08.2025 between the parties subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein and the Mediation succeeded. The parties have settled their grievances and even the dispute arising out in the present matter. The parties have agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them, the said fact is mentioned in para 7 (g) of the said mediation report.
15. The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Apex Court in the cases of (1) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another: (2003)4 SCC 675; (2) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2008) 9 SCC 677; (3) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; (4) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303; (5) Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278 and (6) Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 has held that the cases in which the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed.
16. From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the proceedings as prayed for by the applicant.
17. The present application is allowed.
18. The proceedings of the present case as well as the summoning order/charge sheet are hereby quashed.
19. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Samit Gopal,J.) March 30, 2026 AS Rathore