Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13133 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 118 of 2025 Applicant :- Shailendra Yadav Alias Shailendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Abbas Zaidi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Shri Mohd. Imran, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 in the Court today, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record. 3. 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 S.T. No. 985/2013, Crime no. 422/2013, U/s 363/366 IPC, Police Station - Thakurganj, District: Lucknow styled as State...Vs.... Shailendra Yadav. as well as impugned 29.7.20130Commissioner summoning order dated 26.10.2013 and charge sheet dated 23.6.2013 as contained in Annexure no. 1 and 2." 4. It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.7208 of 2022 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, including that the opposite party no.2 being annoyed on account of the fact that his daughter solemnized marriage with the applicant on 12.05.2013 lodged the FIR, dated 10.06.2013, the basis of pending criminal proceedings, and thereafter this marriage was accepted by opposite party no.2 and others as also that the applicant and daughter of opposite party no.2 are living as husband and wife with minor male child, presently aged about 7 years, this Court vide order dated 12.10.2022 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. 5. It appears from the order dated 21.11.2022 (Annexure No.7) 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 counsel before the court. 6. It is also stated that the FIR was in fact was lodged on account of the fact that the relationship of the applicant and victim, who was in affair with the applicant, was not recognized by the opposite party no.2 and other family members of the victim and therefore the FIR was lodged making allegations to attract offences under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. making allegations therein to the effect that the applicant enticed away the daughter of the opposite party no.2. It is stated that after lodging of FIR the applicant was apprehended and thereafter released on bail and thereafter the marriage of the victim was solemnized with the applicant on 12.05.2013 and presently the applicant and the victim are living happily as husband and wife under one roof with minor child and if this Court declines to interfere with the matter, the matrimonial life of applicant and victim as also the future of their minor children would be ruined. 7. Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the observations made by Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330; Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 435, according to which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (akin to Section 528 BNSS, 2023) could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice, 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, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlements between the parties the criminal proceedings can be quashed, as also the nature of dispute/crime, 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 arising out of Case No.422 of 2013, quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicants. 8. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Anand/- Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench