Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5777 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 799 of 2025 Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Verma @ Krishnakumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Durga Prasad,Ravi Chakravarty Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record. In view of facts of the case, notice to the opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 is hereby dispensed with. The present application has been filed for the following main relief:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside/quash entire proceeding of Session Trial No.163 of 2021 (State Versus Krishna Kumar Verma) pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fact Track-1), Ambedkar Nagar, as well as the charge sheet No.139/2018 dated 19.9.2018 under Sections 308, 336, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali-Tanda, District-Ambedkar Nagar, on the basis of compromise duly verified on 7.1.2025, in the interest of justice, on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties in the interest of justice, in the interest of justice." It is stated that an Complaint Case No. 2273 of 2019 (Krishna Kumar Verma vs. Rajendra Prasad Verma and others) was instituted by the applicant and in this case, the opposite party Nos. 2/Tarawati & 3/Rajendra Prasad Verma herein, who are sister-in-law (Bhabhi) & real brother, respectively, of the applicant, were the opposite parties. The opposite party No. 2/Tarawati on account of some altercation which took place between the parties lodged an FIR registered as Case Crime No. 0148 of 2018 on 09.08.2018 at Police Station- Tanda, District- Ambedkar Nagar making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under Sections 308, 336, 506 IPC. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet bearing No. 01/2018 dated 19.09.2018 was filed against the applicant under Sections 308, 336, 506 IPC. During pendency of the aforesaid case, the parties settled the dispute amicably outside the Court and in terms of the settlement, the parties appeared before the court(s) concerned and based upon the settlement between the parties, the Civil Judge (J.D.), Tanda/J.M., Ambedkar Nagar consigned the aforesaid complaint case to records vide order dated 07.01.2024 annexed at Annexure No. 8 to the instant application. On the same date i.e. on 07.01.2025 based upon the compromise, the Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track-Ist), Ambedkar Nagar also verified the compromise in terms of the order of this Court dated 20.12.2024 passed in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 11742 of 2024 (Krishna Kumar Verma @ Krishnakumar vs. State of U.P. and another). Further submission is that a perusal of the medical report annexed as Annexure Nos. 3 to the instant application would indicate that the offence would ultimately fall under Section 324 IPC, as according to the basic case of the prosecution as indicated in the FIR, the altercation took place between the parties without premeditation of mind on the spur of moment. 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 in issue are hereby quashed qua the applicant. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 28.1.2025 Arun/- Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench