Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23918 Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3534 of 2025 Applicant :- Manvendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sagar Singh,Shri Ram Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. Shri Shashwat Patel, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 2 which is taken on record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. /528 of B.N.S.S. has been filed with the following main prayer:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very graciously be pleased to; Quash the Charge-sheet No.1 dated 01.09.2019 filed against the petitioner, arising out of Case crime No. 500/2019 Under Section 323, 506 & 504 Police Station Kotwali District Unnao, in case bearing title "State Vs. Manvendra Singh" pending before the A.C.J.M. III Unnao., which is annexed as Annexure no. 4 to this petition and the consequent proceedings thereto." 3. Learned counsel for the applicant and the respondent no. 2 has submitted that that in the earlier order passed passed by this Court in Application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C No. 5307 of 2023 (Annexure No. 1), a compromise deed dated 19.12.2022 was filed and when the parties appeared before the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C, Unnao, he had pointed out that the case is now transferred to the court of A.C.J.M III, Unnao, so he could not verify the compromise as directed by this Court. After change of the court, a fresh agreement was entered into between the parties on 17.04.2025 and in para-2 of that, in place of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C, Unnao, as mentioned in the earlier compromise deed dated 19.12.2022, A.C.J.M III, Unnao has been mentioned and rest of the contents of the compromise deed are same as that of earlier compromise deed dated 19.12.2022 and the same was produced before the A.C.J.M III, Unnao, who has verified the same by order dated 17.04.2025, the copies of compromise deed as well as order of verification have been collectively enclosed as Annexure No. 3 to this application. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2 has submitted that he has no grudge or grievance against the present applicant now. 5. It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 5307 of 2023 (Annexure No. 1) and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court vide order dated 26.05.2023 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 17.04.2025 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, according to which, in given facts, based upon the settlement entered into between the parties as mentioned above, 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 the applicant. 8. 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 DiVYa Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench