Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23676 Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3466 of 2025 Applicant :- Naveen Chandara Dubey And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kaustubh Singh,Eman Arshad Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 2, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. The present case has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 of B.N.S.S. with the following main reliefs:- "(i) to quash and set aside the final form/report (charge sheet) filed under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and the other accused persons under Section 419, 420, 406, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code registered as Criminal Case No.7737/2021 and arising out of F.I.R. No.0149/2018, contained in Annexure No.1 to this Petition. (ii) A to quash and set aside the impugned cognizance order dated 20.1.2021 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow, contained as Annexure No.2 to the present Petition. (iii) to quash the criminal proceedings being registered as Case No.7737 of 2021 titled State vs Mamta Dubey & Ors on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties." 4. Learned counsel for the respective parties have submitted that a compromise dated 17.11.2022 (annexure no. 7) entered into between the parties has been verified by the learned trial court by its order dated 22.7.2024 (annexure no. 8) in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 15.5.2023 (annexure-6) passed in the present case. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2 has submitted that he has no grudge or grievance against the present applicants now. 6. It appears that after considering the averments made in the present case and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 15.5.2023 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. 7. It appears from the order dated 22.7.2024 (Annexure No. 8) that the trial court has verified the compromise. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings, quoted above, are hereby quashed as far as it is related to the the applicants. 10. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 25.4.2025 AKK Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench