Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15647 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9120 of 2024 Applicant :- Raghuvansh Mani Pandey @ Dabbu Pandey And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aditya Kumar Bajpai Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 2. The present application has been filed for the following main relief:- "i. To issue an order or direction to quash the entire proceedings in Case No. 13001 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 396 of 2020, Under Section 323, 342, 364, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station - Raunahi, District Ayodhya, (State Vs. Raghuvansh Pandey and others), pending before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Faizabad/ Ayodhya, and quash the Charge Sheet No. 371 of 2020 dated 19.09.2020 filed by the Investigating Officer as well as cognizance taken by the Court of C.J.M. Faizabad, on 30.09.2020 (Annexure No.2), on the basis of compromise. ii. To stay the further proceeding of the Case No. 13001 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 396 of 2020, Under Section 323, 342, 364, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Raunahi, District Ayodhya, (State Vs. Raghuvansh Pandey and others), pending before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Faizabad/ Ayodhya, and stay the Charge Sheet No. 371 of 2020 dated 19.09.2020 filed by the Investigating Officer as well as cognizance taken by the Court of C.J.M. Faizabad, on 30.09.2020 (Annexure No.2), during pendency of the instant petition." 3. It is stated that on account of trivial/petty dispute between the parties, who were/are resident of P.S.-Raunhai, District - Ayodhya, the opposite party no.2 lodged FIR registered as Case Crime No.396 of 2020 on 02.09.2020 making allegations therein to attract offence under Section 364, 342, 323 I.P.C., P.S. Raunhai, District - Ayodhya. 4. It is stated that the dispute which is the basis of lodging of FIR registered as Case Crime No.396 of 2020 has been settled and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the applicant approached this Court by means of Application u/s 482 No.7876 of 2024. 5. It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 7876 of 2024 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 05.09.2024 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. 6. It appears from the order dated 18.09.2024 (Annexure No.5) that the trial court has verified the compromise, mentioning therein that the parties were present and they have admitted that they have entered into an agreement voluntarily and their signatures have been verified by their respective counsels before the court. Counter affidavit also supported the same. 7. 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 arising out of Case Crime No.396 of 2020, quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicants. 8. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 Anand/- Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench