Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18971 Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2878 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Garima Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Sharma,Kushboo Singh,Vinit Kumar Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. Shri Shivam Mishra, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4, which is taken on record. 2. The present application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C (now Section 528 B.N.S.S) with the following prayer:- "For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of Case, (State Vs. Saurabh Chhatry and Others) Pending before the Court of Learned A. C. J. FTC (JD), Lucknow, arising out of Criminal Case No. 16371/2021, Case Crime No. 0018/2020, Under Section-498 A, 323, 504 IPC & 3/4 D. P. Act, at Police Station- Mahila Thana, District Lucknow, bearing Charge sheet No. 01/2021, dated 11.01.2021, Under Section -498 A, 420, 504 IPC & 3/4 D. P. Act, at Police Station- Mahila Thana, District - Lucknow as contained in Annexure No.-1 to this affidavit and consequential summoning order dated 24.06.2021, in Case Crime No. 0018/2020, Under Section 498 A, 323, 504 IPC & 3/4 D. P. Act, at Police Station- Mahila Thana, District - Lucknow filed against the opposite party no.-2 to 4, in view of compromise arrived at between the parties which was duly verified by the Learned A. C. J. FTC (JD), Lucknow, vide order dated 10.02.2025, through Annexure No.-5 to this affidavit, in pursuance of order dated 20.12.2024, passed by this Hon'ble Court in A-482 No. 11966 of 2024, Smt. Garima Singh Vs State of UP & 3 Others." 3. Learned counsel for the respective parties have submitted that a compromise deed dated 07.12.2024 (Annexure No.3) entered into between the parties has been verified by the learned trial court by its order dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure No.5) in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure No.4), passed in Application U/S 482 No. 11966 of 2024. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2 to 4 has submitted that he has no grudge or grievance against the present applicants now. 5. It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 No. 11966 of 2024 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure No.4) referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. It appears from the order dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure No.5) that the trial court has verified the compromise. 6. 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, the dispute pertains to the individuals, due to which criminal proceedings were initiated. 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. 7. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings, quoted above, are hereby quashed as far as it is related to the applicants. 8. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 4.4.2025 Mohd. Sharif Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench