Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16461 Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2493 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Verma Alias Rajendra Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kunwar Ravi Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. Shri Ram Sajeewan Yadav, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 2, which is taken on record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for making correction in the provision of filing an application before this Court during the course of the day. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and learned A.G.A for the State has no objection to the prayer made. 4. As prayed, learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary correction/amendment, during the course of the day. 5. The present application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C (now Section 528 B.N.S.S) with a prayer to quash or Set aside the impugned Charge sheet No. (01) dated 06.03.2019 and summoning order dated 22.11.2019 passed by Learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate: Custom District: Lucknow vide which learned Court has taken cognizance in Case No. 86887 of 2019; Case Crime No. 515/2018; U/S: 354-C/506 I.P.C; Police Station: Malihabad; District: Lucknow (State of U.P. Vs. Rajendra Verma) Presently pending before Learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate Custom: District: Lucknow. 6. Learned counsel for the respective parties have submitted that a compromise deed dated 28.01.2025 entered into between the parties has been verified by the learned trial court by its order dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure no. 6) in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure no.1), passed in Application U/S 482 No. 1186 of 2025. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2 has submitted that he has no grudge or grievance against the present applicant now. 8. Considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1186 of 2025 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is found that the trial court, in pursuance of the order of this court dated 10.02.2025, has verified the compromise entered into between the parties. 9. 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. 10. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings, quoted above, are hereby quashed as far as it is related to the the applicant. 11. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 21.3.2025/DiVYa Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench