High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Alok Sapru Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Mishra,Jay Prakash,Shri Kant Vishwakarma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhijeet Yadav,Pranav Pandey Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Babu Ram Shukla holding brief of Sri Shri Kant Vishwakarma for the applicant, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State and learned counsel appearing for private respondents.

2. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a payer to set aside the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Misc. Case No.36 of 2022 under Sections 420, 342 IPC, P.S. Jankipuram, District Lucknow as well as the summoning order dated 8.8.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, room No.29, Lucknow.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that this matter was sent to mediation centre of this Court vide order dated 25.07.2023 and in pursuance of said orders, both the parties have participated in mediation proceedings which was culminated into successful mediation and the parties have executed an agreement dated 21.09.2023. Copy of the same is available on record along with report of mediation. As per the settlement agreement dated 21.09.2023 executed in mediation centre, both the parties have decided to withdraw the case against each other.

4. The terms and conditions of the aforesaid settlement, are being quoted herein below:- "6. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto - A. That the parties have agreed that the First Party shall pay an amount of Rs.21,25,000/- (Twenty One Lacs Twenty Five Thousand) to his mother i.e. Second Party towards one time full and final settlement of all the claims such as jewellery, bank balance already withdrawn including the claim with regard to House No.4/103, Deepak Deluxe, Sahara Grace, Jankipuram, Lucknow of Second Party from First Party. B) The out of aforementioned amount Rs.21,24,000/- (Twenty One Lacs Twenty Five Thousand), a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one Lac) has already been paid by the First Party to the Second Party vide a Demand Draft No.737199 dated 01.09.2023 drawn on Union Bank of India. The Second Party acknowledges the receipt of the Demand Draft. C) That the parties have agreed that out of aforementioned amount Rs.21,25,000/- (Twenty One Lacs Twenty Five Thousand), Rs.4,00,000/- (Four Lacs) would be paid by the First Party to the Second Party through A/c Payee Cheque3 on the date of entering into settlement agreement before Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow i.e. the 21st Day of September, 2023 and the balance amount Rs.16,25,000/- (Sixteen Lacs Twenty Five Thousand) would be paid by the First Party to the Second Party within next 8 months i.e. by 31st May, 2024 through NEFT/RTGS/DEMAND DRAFT. Accordingly the First Party has handed over a Cheque bearing no.024752 dated 21.09.2023 amounting Rs.4,00,000/- (Four Lacs) drawn on Union Bank of India to the Second Party today i.e. 21.09.2023. D) The parties have further agreed that the First Party shall pay a sum of Rs.8,75,000/- (Eight Lams Seventy Five Thousand) to the Third Party towards one time full and final settlement of all the claims of Third Party from First Party with regard to the share of Third Party in the House No.4/103, Deepak Deluxe, Sahara Grace, Jankipuram, Lucknow. E) The parties have agreed that out of aforementioned amount Rs.8,75,000/- (Eight Lacs Seventy Five Thousand)/- Rs.4,00,000/- (Four Lacs) would be paid by the First Party to the Third Party through A/c Payee Cheque on the date of entering into settlement agreement before Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow i.e. 21st Day of September, 2023 and teh balance amount Rs.4,75,000/- (Eight Lacs Seventy Five Thousand) would be paid by the First Party to the Third Party within next 8 months i.e. by 31st May, 2024 through NEFT/RTGS/DEMAND DRAFT. Accordingly, the First Party has handed over a Cheque bearing No.024753 dated 21.09.2023 amounting Rs.4,00,000/- (Four Lacs) drawn on Union Bank of India o the Third Party today i.e. 21.09.2023. F) The parties have further agreed that the First Party shall pay a sum of Rs.8,75,000/- (Eight Lacs Seventy Five Thousand) to Smt. Deepti Ganju W/o Sri Sandeep Ganju, D/o Late Ashok Kumar Sapru, residing at Bhopal, towards one time full and final settlement of all the claims of Smt. Deepti Ganju from First Party with regard to her share in the House No.4/103, Deepak Deluxe, Sahara Grace, Jankipuram, Lucknow. G) That the parties have agreed that from today all the responsibilities of Second party relates to her livelihood, medical expense etc. shall be borne by the Third Party i.e. Smt. Preeti Sapru @ Preeti Upadhyay and her husband. H) That the parties have agreed that from today the Second Party and Third Party shall not make any type of interference to the First Party in respect of his personal life and House No.4/103, Deepak Deluxe, Sahara Grade, Jankipuram, Lucknow. I) That the parties have agreed that after the aforesaid payment, they shall have no objection if the Hon'ble Court decides APPLICATION U/s 482 No.6662 of 2023 (Alok Sapru Vs. State of U.P.& Others) arising out of Complaint Case No.36 of 2022 U/S 342 and 420 IPC, (Beena Sapru Vs. Alok Sapru) P.S. Jankipuram, Lucknow pending before ACJM-V , Room No.24, Lucknow in terms of this settlement agreement. J) That both the parties have agreed to withdraw/ not press/not to pursue/give NOC the cases filed against each other and their family members. The details of the cases are as under: I. R.S. No.1651 of 2021 (Alok Sapru Vs. State Bank of India and Others) pending before Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Malihabad, Lucknow K) The parties have agreed that besides the above mentioned case, if any other case is pending between the parties the same shall also be withdrawn/settled by the parties. L) That it is also agreed between the parties that neither they themselves nor any members of their respective families shall institute any malicious prosecution, in the form of any criminal or civil proceedings against each other, or any of their relatives or family members, in future in respect to the present dispute or any matter incidental there to and if any proceeding has already been initiated the same would stand disposed of in terms of this Settlement Agreement. M) That both the parties under stand, agree and further bind themselves, if either of the parties rescinds or does not follow the conditions stipulated herein above, such act shall entail appropriate legal action.

7. By signing this agreement the parties hereto state that they have no further claims or demands against each other with respect to APPLICATION U/S 482 No.66642 of 2023 (Alok Sapru Vs. State of U.P. & Others) and all disputes and difference in this regard have been amicably settled by the Parties hereto through the process of Conciliation/Mediation."

5. Learned counsel for the applicants thus submits that since both the parties have entered into compromise and settled their dispute amicably which was also reduced in writing, the aforesaid case may be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for opposite party no.s 2, 3 and 4 as well as learned AGA for the State could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another; (2012) 10 SCC 303, in paragraph No. 61 of the judgement, observed as under:- "The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

8. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Laxmi Narayan; (2019) 5 SCC 688, observed as under:- "15.1. the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

15.2. such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

15.3 similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;"

9. From above noted judgements, it is clear that merely mentioning the section of serious offences will not refrain the court from quashing the proceeding, if on considering the material on record, offences under that section is not made out.

10. Considering the material on record, this Court finds that no serious offence is made out against the revisionist, which falls in the category of mental depravity or serious offences.

11. Considering the fact as well as on perusal of record, it appears that no heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or other offences, which may affect the society in general, are made out and both the parties have amicably settled their dispute through process of mediation before Medication and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Lucknow as well as in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another ; (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Another (2014) 6 SCC 477, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 and State of M.P. vs. Dhruv Gurjar, AIR 2017 SC 1106, the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Misc. Case No.36 of 2022 under Sections 420, 342 IPC, P.S. Jankipuram, District Lucknow as well as the summoning order dated 8.8.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, room No.29, Lucknow, is hereby quashed.

12. in view of the aforesaid agreement, the present criminal revision is allowed. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur, J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Applicant :- Alok Sapru Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Mishra,Jay Prakash,Shri Kant Vishwakarma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhijeet Yadav,Pranav Pandey Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Babu Ram Shukla holding brief of Sri Shri Kant Vishwakarma for the applicant, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State and learned counsel appearing for private respondents.

2. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a payer to set aside the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Misc. Case No.36 of 2022 under Sections 420, 342 IPC, P.S. Jankipuram, District Lucknow as well as the summoning order dated 8.8.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, room No.29, Lucknow.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that this matter was sent to mediation centre of this Court vide order dated 25.07.2023 and in pursuance of said orders, both the parties have participated in mediation proceedings which was culminated into successful mediation and the parties have executed an agreement dated 21.09.2023. Copy of the same is available on record along with report of mediation. As per the settlement agreement dated 21.09.2023 executed in mediation centre, both the parties have decided to withdraw the case against each other.

4. The terms and conditions of the aforesaid settlement, are being quoted herein below:- "6. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto - A. That the parties have agreed that the First Party shall pay an amount of Rs.21,25,000/- (Twenty One Lacs Twenty Five Thousand) to his mother i.e. Second Party towards one time full and final settlement of all the claims such as jewellery, bank balance already withdrawn including the claim with regard to House No.4/103, Deepak Deluxe, Sahara Grace, Jankipuram, Lucknow of Second Party from First Party. B) The out of aforementioned amount Rs.21,24,000/- (Twenty One Lacs Twenty Five Thousand), a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one Lac) has already been paid by the First Party to the Second Party vide a Demand Draft No.737199 dated 01.09.2023 drawn on Union Bank of India. The Second Party acknowledges the receipt of the Demand Draft. C) That the parties have agreed that out of aforementioned amount Rs.21,25,000/- (Twenty One Lacs Twenty Five Thousand), Rs.4,00,000/- (Four Lacs) would be paid by the First Party to the Second Party through A/c Payee Cheque3 on the date of entering into settlement agreement before Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow i.e. the 21st Day of September, 2023 and the balance amount Rs.16,25,000/- (Sixteen Lacs Twenty Five Thousand) would be paid by the First Party to the Second Party within next 8 months i.e. by 31st May, 2024 through NEFT/RTGS/DEMAND DRAFT. Accordingly the First Party has handed over a Cheque bearing no.024752 dated 21.09.2023 amounting Rs.4,00,000/- (Four Lacs) drawn on Union Bank of India to the Second Party today i.e. 21.09.2023. D) The parties have further agreed that the First Party shall pay a sum of Rs.8,75,000/- (Eight Lams Seventy Five Thousand) to the Third Party towards one time full and final settlement of all the claims of Third Party from First Party with regard to the share of Third Party in the House No.4/103, Deepak Deluxe, Sahara Grace, Jankipuram, Lucknow. E) The parties have agreed that out of aforementioned amount Rs.8,75,000/- (Eight Lacs Seventy Five Thousand)/- Rs.4,00,000/- (Four Lacs) would be paid by the First Party to the Third Party through A/c Payee Cheque on the date of entering into settlement agreement before Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow i.e. 21st Day of September, 2023 and teh balance amount Rs.4,75,000/- (Eight Lacs Seventy Five Thousand) would be paid by the First Party to the Third Party within next 8 months i.e. by 31st May, 2024 through NEFT/RTGS/DEMAND DRAFT. Accordingly, the First Party has handed over a Cheque bearing No.024753 dated 21.09.2023 amounting Rs.4,00,000/- (Four Lacs) drawn on Union Bank of India o the Third Party today i.e. 21.09.2023. F) The parties have further agreed that the First Party shall pay a sum of Rs.8,75,000/- (Eight Lacs Seventy Five Thousand) to Smt. Deepti Ganju W/o Sri Sandeep Ganju, D/o Late Ashok Kumar Sapru, residing at Bhopal, towards one time full and final settlement of all the claims of Smt. Deepti Ganju from First Party with regard to her share in the House No.4/103, Deepak Deluxe, Sahara Grace, Jankipuram, Lucknow. G) That the parties have agreed that from today all the responsibilities of Second party relates to her livelihood, medical expense etc. shall be borne by the Third Party i.e. Smt. Preeti Sapru @ Preeti Upadhyay and her husband. H) That the parties have agreed that from today the Second Party and Third Party shall not make any type of interference to the First Party in respect of his personal life and House No.4/103, Deepak Deluxe, Sahara Grade, Jankipuram, Lucknow. I) That the parties have agreed that after the aforesaid payment, they shall have no objection if the Hon'ble Court decides APPLICATION U/s 482 No.6662 of 2023 (Alok Sapru Vs. State of U.P.& Others) arising out of Complaint Case No.36 of 2022 U/S 342 and 420 IPC, (Beena Sapru Vs. Alok Sapru) P.S. Jankipuram, Lucknow pending before ACJM-V , Room No.24, Lucknow in terms of this settlement agreement. J) That both the parties have agreed to withdraw/ not press/not to pursue/give NOC the cases filed against each other and their family members. The details of the cases are as under: I. R.S. No.1651 of 2021 (Alok Sapru Vs. State Bank of India and Others) pending before Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Malihabad, Lucknow K) The parties have agreed that besides the above mentioned case, if any other case is pending between the parties the same shall also be withdrawn/settled by the parties. L) That it is also agreed between the parties that neither they themselves nor any members of their respective families shall institute any malicious prosecution, in the form of any criminal or civil proceedings against each other, or any of their relatives or family members, in future in respect to the present dispute or any matter incidental there to and if any proceeding has already been initiated the same would stand disposed of in terms of this Settlement Agreement. M) That both the parties under stand, agree and further bind themselves, if either of the parties rescinds or does not follow the conditions stipulated herein above, such act shall entail appropriate legal action.

7. By signing this agreement the parties hereto state that they have no further claims or demands against each other with respect to APPLICATION U/S 482 No.66642 of 2023 (Alok Sapru Vs. State of U.P. & Others) and all disputes and difference in this regard have been amicably settled by the Parties hereto through the process of Conciliation/Mediation."

5. Learned counsel for the applicants thus submits that since both the parties have entered into compromise and settled their dispute amicably which was also reduced in writing, the aforesaid case may be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for opposite party no.s 2, 3 and 4 as well as learned AGA for the State could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another; (2012) 10 SCC 303, in paragraph No. 61 of the judgement, observed as under:- "The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

8. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Laxmi Narayan; (2019) 5 SCC 688, observed as under:- "15.1. the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

15.2. such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

15.3 similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;"

9. From above noted judgements, it is clear that merely mentioning the section of serious offences will not refrain the court from quashing the proceeding, if on considering the material on record, offences under that section is not made out.

10. Considering the material on record, this Court finds that no serious offence is made out against the revisionist, which falls in the category of mental depravity or serious offences.

11. Considering the fact as well as on perusal of record, it appears that no heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or other offences, which may affect the society in general, are made out and both the parties have amicably settled their dispute through process of mediation before Medication and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Lucknow as well as in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another ; (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Another (2014) 6 SCC 477, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 and State of M.P. vs. Dhruv Gurjar, AIR 2017 SC 1106, the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Misc. Case No.36 of 2022 under Sections 420, 342 IPC, P.S. Jankipuram, District Lucknow as well as the summoning order dated 8.8.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, room No.29, Lucknow, is hereby quashed.

12. in view of the aforesaid agreement, the present criminal revision is allowed. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur, J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench