Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1224 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 110 of 2025 Applicant :- Kallu And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Nayab Raza Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Sri Upendra Pratap Singh, learned Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record. The present application has been filed for the following main relief:- "WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceeding in Case no. 12974/2023 Crime no. 163/2022 U/s 323/427/504/506 IPC, Police Station - Thakurganj, District: Lucknow styled as State… Vs….Kallu and others. as well as impugned summoning order dated 6.1.2023 and charge sheet dated 27.9.2022 as contained in Annexure no. l and 2." It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 10175 of 2024 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 13.11.2024 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. It appears from the order dated 07.12.2024 (Annexure No.6) that the trial court has verified the compromise, mentioning therein that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels before the court. Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and the nature of dispute/crime as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (14) SCC 531, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2012 10 SCC 303], Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC Online ALL 106, Gold Quest International Ltd. Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2014 (15) SCC 235, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (4) SCC 675, Jitendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi, 2013(4) SCC 58, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988 1 SCC 692, Nikhil Merchant Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2008(9) SCC 677, Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, 2008(16) SCC 1, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, 2019(5) SCC 688, Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Union Carbide Corporation and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 4 SCC 584, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others (2014) 2 SCC 532 and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, this Court is of the view that the present application is liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction are extremely bleak and hence no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings of Case no. 12974/2023 (Supra), indicated in the prayer, quoted above, are hereby quashed. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 8.1.2025 Jyoti/- Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench