Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16308 Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1190 of 2024 Applicant :- Vipin Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shamshad Ahmad Khan,Mohammad Arshad,Mohd. Tariq Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Piyush Mishra,Vinay Prakash Tiwari Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. The present case has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. /528 of B.N.S.S. with 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 the case no. 173/2020 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Ankita Shukla Vs. Vipin Mishra, pending in the court of third additional principal Judge, Family Court, Sultanpur as well as the order dated 03.11.2023 annexure no. 8 passed by the learned Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Sultanpur in Crl. Misc. Case No. 202/2023, Vipin Mishra Vs. Smt. Ankita Shukla under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. PS Jagidshpur Distt. Amethi only to extent of depositing the cost amount of Rs. 25,000/- on the basis of the compromise made through the suit no. 2233/23 under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as well as first motion statement dated 14.07.2023 of the opp. party no. 2 and her affidavit of compromise dated 14.07.2023 in the interest of justice. " It appears that on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties that the parties have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and to this effect a compromise deed dated 06.02.2025 had also been filed as annexure no. CA-1 to the counter affidavit so, this Court vide its order dated 11.2.2025 referred the matter to learned Senior Registrar of this Court to verify the compromise deed. In compliance of order of this Court dated 11.02.2025, the applicant-Vipin Mishra and respondent no. 2-Ankita Shukla(wife of the applicant) appeared before the Senior Registrar on 17.02.2025 and the contents of the said compromise deed have been read over and explained to both the parties, to which, they were agreed. They have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 11.02.2025, learned Senior Registrar of this Court has submitted its report dated 17.02.2025 verifying the compromise between applicant namely Vipin Mishra and respondent no. 2 Ankita Shukla. 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, quoted above, are hereby quashed as far as it is related to 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 :- 20.3.2025 Ashish Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench