Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8993 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 457 of 2025 Applicant :- Brijendra Pratap And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bhola Singh Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pravin Kumar Verma Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Short counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant 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 perused 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 proceedings of Session Trial No. 799/2022, (state vs. Ram Prasad & Another), arising out of case crime no. 305/2021, under section-323/352/376 IPC, Police Station- Nigoha, District-Lucknow pending before the hon'ble court of Special Judge PC Act VII, Lucknow, as well as impugned charge sheet dated 25.12.2021 which filed against the applicants and the impugned cognizance order dated 03-01-2022 passed by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate First, Lucknow, contained as Annexure No. 1 and 2 in the interest of justice." It is stated that the dispute in fact was a matrimonial dispute. On being advised, the opposite party No. 2/ complainant/ victim (wife of the applicant No. 1), marriage of whom was solemnized on 28.06.2018 with the applicant No. 1, lodged the FIR against the applicant No. 1 as also against the applicant No. 2, who is the father-in-law of the opposite party No. 2, making allegation therein to attract offence under Section 323, 352 and 376 IPC. The FIR No.0305 was lodged on 05.11.2021 at Police Station Nigoha, District Lucknow Rural. It is further stated that to support the story as narrated in the FIR, the opposite party No. 2/ complainant/ victim made the statement before the investigation officer as also before the court concerned in terms of Section 161 CrPC and 164 CrPC It is further stated that the medical examination was denied by the opposite party No. 2/ complainant/ victim. Further submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that matrimonial dispute between the parties has been settled and this can be verified from the opposite party No. 2/ complainant/ victim, who is present in person before this Court and is duly identified by her counsel Sri Pravin Kumar Verma, as also the applicant No. 1 and 2 who are present in person before this Court and are duly identified by their counsel Sri Ajeet Pratap Singh. The compromise deed dated 29.10.2025 is annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the present application. It is further stated that in view of the aforesaid, pending criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case be disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties. Considering the aforesaid as also the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties as also the parties to the dispute, who are present in Court in person before this Court, and 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 Session Trial No. 799/2022, (State vs. Ram Prasad & Another), arising out of case crime No. 305/2021, under Section-323/352/376 IPC, Police Station- Nigoha, District- Lucknow pending before the Special Judge PC Act VII, Lucknow are hereby quashed qua the applicants. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 (Manoj K.) Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench