Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20879 Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3129 of 2025 Applicant :- Jangli Prasad And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kumar Tripathi,Arvind Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurakt Singh,Shitesh Jha Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. has been preferred with the following main prayer:- "(i) Issue an order or direction for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 11315/2024 titled as State Vs. Vidyawati Devi and others, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial magistrate (C.J.M.), Lakhimpur Kheri, arising out of Case Crime No. 0044/2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Paliya, District Kheri, along with impugned Charge Sheet date 26.10.2023 (Annexure No.2) and impugned summoning order dated 24.12.2024 (Aannexure No.3) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (C.J.M.), Lakhimpaur Kheri, on the basis of the compromise dated 04.02.2025 which was verified by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri vide order dated 28,.02.2025 (Annexure No.9)." 2. During the pendency of the criminal case the compromise has been entered between the applicants and the respondent no.3. The applicants earlier also approached this Court by filing Application under Section 482 No. 1421 of 2025 and this Court has passed an order dated 14.02.2025, which is quoted herein below:- "Sri Anurakt Singh, Advocate, has put in appearance for the private opposite party(s) and has filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Instant application has been preferred by the applicant(s) for the following main relief(s):- "(i) Issue an order or direction for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Case No. 11315/2024 titled as State Vs. Vidyawati Devi., Pending in the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (C.J.M.), Lakhimpur Kheri, arising out of Case Crime No. 0044/2022, under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Paliya, District Kheri., along with Impugned Charge-sheet dated 26.10.2023 (Annexure No. 2) and Impugned Summoning Order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure No. 3) passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (C.J.M.), Lakhimpur Kheri. (ii) Stay the effect and operation of the Impugned Summoning Order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (C.J.M.), Lakhimpur Kheri, in Case No. 11315/2024 titled as State Vs. Vidyawati Devi, arising out of Case Crime No. 0044/2022, under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Paliya, District Kheri, during the pendency of the instant Application." Learned counsel for the applicant(s) submitted that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and have entered into a compromise and a copy of compromise deed, duly signed by the parties, is annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the present application. As such, keeping in view the settlement arrived at between the parties and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, the proceedings impugned are liable to be quashed. Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the trial court as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court. Considering the aforesaid, this application is disposed of finally in following terms:- (i) The parties to the proceedings in issue shall appear and file the compromise before the concerned court within four week's from today. (ii) If the parties appear before the concerned court in terms of above, the concerned Court shall proceed to verify the compromise between the parties to the proceedings and prepare a report to the same effect and the original compromise deed be made part of record. (iii) The concerned court shall conclude the process of verification of compromise within two week's from the date of production of copy of this order. (iv) The concerned court shall permit the parties to the proceedings to obtain the certified copy of the report as well as compromise deed. (v) It shall be open to the applicant(s) to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings. (vi) Office is directed to provide original compromise, if any, to the counsel for the applicant(s), after retaining its photocopy on record. It is for the purposes for its verification by the concerned court. (vii) For a period of eight weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant(s) in the aforesaid case." 3. In compliance of the order of this Court a compromise entered into between the applicants and the respondent no.3 which has been verified by the concerned court by its order dated 28.2.2025. The certified copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure No.9 to the application. 4. Shri Anurakt Singh has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.3 and Shri Shitesh Jha on behalf of respondent no.2, which are taken on record. 5. Shri Shitesh Jha, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has opposed the compromise and the verification made by the Court concerned on the ground that the respondent no.2 was the complainant and has lodged the FIR and the compromise has not signed by him nor he had appeared before the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise, so on the basis of compromise and its verification the proceedings cannot be quashed/ set aside. 6. Shri Anurakt Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has submitted that the property belongs to the respondent no.3 who had executed a power of attorney in favour of the respondent no.2 and it is not disputed at the time of lodging of FIR the power of attorney was in favour of respondent no.2 but during the pendency of the criminal case the respondent no.3 has withdrawn the power of attorney issued in favour of respondent no.2, so the respondent no.2 was only an agent of respondent no.3 and he has no locus to challenge the compromise entered into between the respondent no.3 and the applicants. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case that it is undisputed fact between the parties that the respondent no.2 was power of attorney holder of respondent no.3 to look-after and manage his property. The power of attorney holder is an agent of a Principal and when the Principal had withdrawn the power of attorney executed in favour of the agent i.e. respondent no.2 then the agent has no role to play in the matter. The Principal / owner of the property has entered into a compromise with the applicants and does not want to proceed with the criminal proceedings against applicants. Though the FIR was not lodged by R. No. 3 but it was lodged on his behalf by an agent i.e. R.No.2 and due to non existence of power of attorney in favour of the respondent no.2 the Principal is empowered to take decision for his own property and pertaining to the case related to it. 8. It appears from the order dated 28.2.2025 (Annexure No.9 to the application) that the trial court has verified the compromise. 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 settlement 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 :- 11.4.2025 Muk Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench