Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26868 Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7997 of 2019 Applicant :- Indrajit Mandal And Ors. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Shobhit Saxena,Arvind Kumar Kanaujea,Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Gupta,Onkar Nath Tiwari,Prashansa Singh,Trideep Narayan Pandey,Vijay Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. Second supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant 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 respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash that this is the first petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. being preferred to set aside the summing order dated 29.06.2018 and NBW dated 12.04.2019 in complaint case No.5781 of 2017, Reema Vishvas Versus Indrajit Mandal and Others. U/S 323, 504, 506, 498A, I.P.C. 3/4 DP Act summing order dated 29.06.2018 and NBW 12.04.2019 are being annexed herewith as Annexure no.1 and 2 respectively to this petition may also be set aside/quashed in the interest of justice. It is further prayed that during the pendency of the instant petition, further proceedings of complaint Case No.5781 of 2017, Reema Vishvas Versus Indrajit Mandal and others pending before the JM first Faizabad may kindly be stayed in the interest of justice." Learned counsel for the respective parties have submitted that a compromise dated 27.02.2025 entered into between the parties has been verified by the learned trial court by its order dated 22.04.2025 copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure no. SA-2 in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 09.04.2025 passed in the present case. 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 22.04.2025 (Annexure No.SA-2) 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 :- 7.5.2025 Nitesh Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench