Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8320 Court No. - 17 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1210 of 2025 Applicant :- Gayasuddin @ Kasuddin And 13 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Deepak Kumar, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party No.2 is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record. 3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C (now Section 528 B.N.S.S) has been preferred for quashing the entire proceedings arising out of Chargesheet No. 01/2019, dated 08.12.2019, under Sections 34, 147, 148, 149, 452, 336, 504, 506, 323 I.P.C, Police Station- Thakurganj, District Lucknow as well as all consequential proceedings in Case No. 5045/2021, 'State versus Idrees and others', arising out of F.I.R/Case Crime No. 0477/2021, under Sections 34, 147, 148, 149, 452. 336, 504, 506, 323 I.P.C, Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow, on the basis of compromise dated 28.10.2024, to the accompanying afÏdavit, in the, interest of Justice. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 jointly submitted that vide order dated 19.11.2024, passed by this Court in A-482 No. 10354 of 2024, a direction was given to the trial court to verify the factum of compromise executed by the parties. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, learned trial court had verified the contents of compromise vide order dated 09.01.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 jointly submitted that the parties have entered into compromise, which has duly been verified by the trial court. 6. Learned A.G.A. has fairly conceded that compromise has been effected between the parties and the same has duly been verified by the trial court. 7. Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that inherent power can be used to do real and substantial justice as has been held in Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab, 2012 AIR SCW 5333, B.S. Joshi and others Vs State of Haryana, (2003) 3 SCC 675 and Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466. Hence, inherent power can be exercised to speed up the process of ending the criminal proceedings where the settlement is arrived at between the parties. 8. In view of the aforesaid and the fact that parties do not want to pursue the case any further, the matter is purely of personal nature, which has been mutually settled between the parties by way of the compromise, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further. 9. Considering 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. 10. Accordingly, present application is allowed. 11. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of Chargesheet No. 01/2019, dated 08.12.2019, under Sections 34, 147, 148, 149, 452, 336, 504, 506, 323 I.P.C, Police Station- Thakurganj, District Lucknow as well as all consequential proceedings in Case No. 5045/2021, 'State versus Idrees and others', arising out of F.I.R/Case Crime No. 0477/2021, under Sections 34, 147, 148, 149, 452. 336, 504, 506, 323 I.P.C, Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow passed by Additional Sessions Judge/A.C.J.M, Court No. 24 are hereby quashed. 12. OfÏce/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 DiVYa Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench