Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22444 Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3358 of 2025 Applicant :- Piyush Mishra And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Mishra,Ganga Prasad,Satish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. Shri Harsh Mohan, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 2, which is taken on record. The present case has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. /528 of B.N.S.S. with the following main relief:- " Wherefore, it is most humble prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the cognizance order dated 14.09.2021 arising out in Case Crime No. 0428/2020, Under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station- Thakurganj, District- Lucknow (State Versus Pyush Mishra & others), passed by the court of Addl. Civil Judge (Senor Division), Court Room No.24 District- Lucknow, as well as impugned charge sheet dated-13.05.2021, submitted by the investigating Officer against the applicants, in aforesaid Case Crime numberin the interest of justice. It is further prayed that the further proceeding in pursuance to the impugned Cognizance order dated- 14.09.2021 as well as Charge Sheet dated-13.05.2021in case crime no.0428/2020, Under Section-498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. 8¾ D.P. Act Relating to Police Station-Thakurganj, District-Lucknow, bearing name State V/S Pyush Mishra & Others, which is passed by Add. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court Room No.24, District- Lucknow,may be stayed during the pendency of this application Under Section- 528 BNSS (Old-482 Cr.P.C.) before this Hon'ble Court. " Learned counsel for the respective parties have submitted that a compromise dated 04.10.2024 (annexure no. 5) entered into between the parties has been verified by the learned trial court by its order dated 28.03.2025 (annexure no. 6) in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 13.02.2025 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 1369 of 2025 (annexure no. 1). Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2 has submitted that he has no grudge or grievance against the present applicants now. It appears that after considering the averments made in the aforesaid case preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide the aforesaid order 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 28.03.2025 (Annexure No.6) that the trial court has verified the compromise. 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. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings, quoted above, are hereby quashed as far as it is related to the the applicant. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Nitesh Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench