Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15228 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2319 of 2025 Applicant :- Dileep Kumar @ Dulli And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Pandey,Arun Kumar Pamdey,Priyanka Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Sri Ram Suphal, 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:- "It is most respectfully that this Hon'ble court may kindly be Quash the Charge Sheet dated: 06.09.2017 Proceeding of the ST No 705 of 2017, Case crime no: 323/2017 U/S: 354,504 IPC 3(2)(Va) SC/ST Act pending before the Court of Special Judge Sc/ST Act Lucknow contented as a Annexure no. 1 to this petition." It is stated that on account of some petty dispute related to fixing of door, the opposite party No. 2 lodged an FIR registered as Case Crime No. 0323/2017 on 03.07.2017 at Police Station- Mohanlalganj, District- Lucknow South (Commissioerate Lucknow) making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under Sections 354, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act. It is further stated that during pendency of the case arising out of aforesaid FIR before the court concerned, the said petty dispute was settled and in terms of the said settlement, the parties approached this Court by means of the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1155 of 2025 and this Court vide order dated 11.02.2025, after considering the documents in support thereof and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, 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 24.02.2025 (Annexure No.5) 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. 323/2017, 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 :- 12.3.2025 Arun/- Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench