Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28262 Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4040 of 2025 Applicant :- Saurabh Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Dikshit,Pervesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. Mr. Arshad Jameel, learned Advocate has put in appearance and filed 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:- "For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 16.05.2022 arising out of case crime no. 073/2021, under sections 498A,323,506, I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Maliha Thana, District Lucknow as well as cognizance / summoning order dated 28.11.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/ FTC, Court no. 50, Lucknow in Criminal Case no. 89674/2023 (State Versus Saurabh Yadav and others) pending before Civil Judge (J.D.)/ FTC, Court no. 50, Lucknow in terms of the compromise deed dated 21.11.2024 duly verified by the learned court below on 26.03.2025 as contained in Annexure nos. 2 & 3 respectively to this petition. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to stay the further criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned charge sheet dated 16.05.2022 arising out of case crime no. 073/2021, under sections 498A,323,506, I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Maliha Thana, District Lucknow as well as cognizance /summoning order dated 28.11.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/ FTC, Court no. 50, Lucknow in Criminal Case пo. 89674/2023 (State Versus Saurabh Yadav and others) pending before Civil Judge (J.D.)/ FTC, Court no. 50, Lucknow in terms of the compromise deed dated 21.11.2024, duly verified by the learned court below on 26.03.2025, during pendency of the instant petition, in the interest of justice." Learned counsel for the respective parties have submitted that a compromise dated 21.11.2024 entered into between the parties has been verified by the learned trial court by its order dated 26.03.2025 in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 06.03.2025 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 2058 of 2025. 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 Application U/S 482 No. 2058 of 2025 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 06.03.2025 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 21.11.2024 (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 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. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings, quoted above, are hereby quashed as far as it is related to the applicants. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 S. Kumar Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench