Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14469 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2205 of 2025 Applicant :- Salim @ Salim Bax And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Irshad Ali,Archana Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Sri Syed Suleman Abbas, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No. 2 in the Court today, which 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:- "For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying Petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, it is expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quashed the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.- 2302627 of 2012 "State V/s Chunna Gaddi and Others" Crime No.- 117 of 2000, P.S.- Saadatganj, U/s 379, 411 IPC pending in the court of J.M.-ATS/A.C.J.M. Court No.-30, Lucknow relating to the Charge Sheet No. 90 of 2000 P.S. Saadatganj, District Lucknow against the petitioners on the basis of the verification report of the learned court below dated 24/12/2024 and compromise dated 29/10/2024 contained as Annexure No.2 and 3 respectively to the accompanying affidavit, in the interest of Justice." It is stated that making allegations to attract the offences as indicated under Sections 379 and 411 IPC against the applicants, an FIR was lodged by the opposite party No. 2 on 09.08.2000 registered as Case Crime No. 117 of 2000, Police Station- Saadatganj, District- Lucknow and after due investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the applicant No. 1 under Sections 379 & 411 IPC and against the applicants Nos. 2 & 3 under Section 379 IPC. It is further stated that the FIR was lodged on account of some petty dispute between the applicants and opposite party No. 2. It is also stated that the recovery shown, which is the basis of filing of charge sheet against the applicant No. 1 under Section 411, is a bogus recovery. It is further stated that during pendency of the case before the trial court, the petty dispute between the applicants and opposite party No. 2, which is pending for more than 24 years, was settled and therefore, the applicants based upon the compromise/settlement dated 29.10.2024 had approached this Court by means of APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 11115 of 2024 (Salim @ Salim Baksh And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another) and after considering the documents in support of the application as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 09.12.2024 disposed of the said application and referred the matter to the concerned court for the purposes of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. It appears from the order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure No.2) that the trial court has verified the compromise, mentioning therein that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels before the court. 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 No. 117 of 2000, quoted above, 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 :- 10.3.2025 Arun/- Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench