Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9064 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1317 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohd. Adnan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Nisha Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record. The present application has been filed for the following main relief:- "The petitioner named above most respectfully begs to submit that for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Charge-Sheet No. 87/2022 dated 19.04.2022, under section 354(Ka), 504, 506 I.P.C., & Section 7/8 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Kursi, District Barabanki, as well as Summoning order dated 04.05.2023, passed by Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge, Court No.44, Barabanki, in S.C. No. 954/2023, State Vs Adnan', arising out of Case Crime No. 0078/2022, under section 354(Ka), 504, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station - Kursi, District - Barabanki, pending in the Court of Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge, Court No.44, Barabanki, in the light of compromise dated 13.11.2024, taken place between the parties. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceedings of the S.C. No. 954/2023, 'State Vs Adnan', during the pendency of this petition." It is stated by learned Counsel for the applicant that victim, according to the date of birth i.e. 03.09.2005 was about 16 years and 7 months old at the time of lodging of the FIR by opposite party no.2, i.e. on 31.03.2022, registered as Case Crime No. 0078/2022, under section 354(Ka), 504, 506 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act, registered at Police Station - Kursi, District - Barabanki. It is further stated that FIR in issue, was lodged against Mohd. Arman, Osama and Mohd. Faizan sons of Mohd. Suleman. This fact itself indicate that FIR was lodged with oblique motive making allegations therein to attract the offence under Section 354(ka) IPC and so far as Sections 504/506 IPC is concerned, the FIR itself indicates that essential ingredients to attract the same are missing. It is further stated that infact the FIR was lodged on account of village parti- bandi and political enmity. It is further stated after due investigation the charge-sheet has been filed only against the applicant. This charge-sheet has been filed only on the basis of statement of victim, who appears to be tutored by opposite party no.2 under the influence of political rivalry of the village. It is further stated that statement(s) of independent witnesses namely Prakash son of Kashi Ram and Dinesh son of Brij Lal, annexed as Annexure No. 9 to the present application, would indicate that offence as alleged in the FIR was not occurred. The statement(s) of the these witnesses further indicates that these are the witnesses of altercation which took place on 31.03.2022 and there is no independent witnesses of incident occurred on 28.03.2022 at about 7:30 A.M. as stated by the victim, according to which the applicant caught her finger while the victim was going to school. It is further stated that during the pendency of the criminal case in issue, on interference of the persons of the vicinity, the dispute between the parties, which indicates was a political dispute, has been settled. Prayer is to allow in the instant application. The short counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2 before this court, supports the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant. 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 Crime No. 0078/2022, quoted above, 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 :- 12.2.2025/Jyoti/- Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench