Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1713 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5848 of 2023 Applicant :- Mahesh Vishnani Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Govt. Deptt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Varun Vishal Pandey,Suresh Chandra Goswami Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Ranjan Mishra Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present application has been filed with following main prayer: "To quash the CHARGE SHEET NO: 68 (as contained in Annexure No.-1), Dated: 08/011/2001, Under Section - 376, 354 of Indian Penal Code, along with the Criminal Proceedings initiated on the basis of FIR No. 90/2001, in case crime no. 84/2001 (as contained in Annexure No.- 2), Dated: 31/08/2001, registered at Mahila Thana, District-Lucknow against the Petitioner." 3. It is stated that at the time of lodging of FIR by the mother of the victim, who has expired on 08.07.2016, the victim was aged about 4-5 years and in fact, the FIR against the applicant, who is real uncle of the victim, was lodged only on account of family dispute and further that the story of the prosecution is narrated in the FIR was neither supported by father of the victim nor her elder sister supported the version of the FIR. 4. It is also stated that the victim after becoming major and coming to know about the complete facts approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 22753 (MB) of 2019 for quashing the FIR No. 90 of 2001 registered on 31.08. 2001, under Sections 376, 354 IPC at Police Station - Mahila Thana, District-Lucknow, the basis of pending criminal proceedings in issue, and this Court, at first instance entertained the said petition, as would appear from the order dated 27.08.2019 annexed as Annexure No. 8 to the application and thereafter, the said petition was disposed of finally without acceding the prayer sought in the said petition on 29.01.2020. 5. It is further stated that the applicant, at present, is aged about sixty two years and in fact he has not committed any offence. 6. Further submission is that the opposite party no. 2 during the pendency of the case got married and is living in her matrimonial home and the pendency of the impugned proceedings in issue before the trial Court are affecting the matrimonial life of the opposite party no. 2. 7. It is also stated 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. 9. 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. 8. It is further stated that para 4 and 5 of the affidavit filed by the the opposite party no. 2/victim would indicate that case is pending since 2001 and taking note of the period of pendency of the case and the aforesaid facts, the indulgence of this Court is required. 9. For the sake of convenience, para 4 to 5 of the counter affidavit is extracted herein-under: "4. That at the time of registering the FIR No. 90/2001, under sections 376, 354 IPC at Mahila Thana, the deponent was minor, not only minor she was in her childhood having 4 or 5 years of age, whereas the Mother/Informant of the deponent falsely implicated her Uncle Shri Mahesh Vishnani in her name. The deponent is the younger daughter among two of Shri Manohar Vishnani and Smt. Shobha Sundarani. Neither her Father nor her elder sister supported the version of FIR, and never any statements of her elder sister or/and her father were recorded in this regard during the course of investigation by the Investigating Officer. It is so happened that the Mother of the deponent took her to the Police Station for registering the FIR, before moving towards the Police Station the Mother of the deponent forcefully taught her a lesson that whatever be asked by the Police Uncle just give reply only in yes or no, by moving your head and the reply must be supportive else otherwise the deponent should face the evil consequences. Thereafter, the deponent follows the path with her Mother without having any knowledge of about what is going on and what will be its consequences. 5. That the voluntary confession of the Victim/deponent is that the version as specified in the impugned Charge-Sheet/FIR in regards to the deponent was never happened with her. The impugned Charge- Sheet/FIR is a result of the conspiracy made by her Mother/Informant. Where, no statement of the victim has been recorded either under 161 Cr.P.C. or under 164 Cr.P.C." 10. 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 as also the nature of dispute/crime as also that pending proceedings would affect the matrimonial life of the victim/opposite party no. 2 as also the averments made in the counter affidavit, quoted above, 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 arising out of FIR No. 90 of 2001, in Case Crime No. 84 of 2001, quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicant. 11. The application is allowed. 12. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 9.1.2025 Mohit Singh/- Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench