Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2892 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10863 of 2024 Applicant :- Faiz Khan @ Faiz Lahari And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Srivastava,Satendra Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sri Anubhav Prakash Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 5, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record. 2. The present application has been filed for the following main relief:- "To quash the proceedings of Session Trial No. 316 of 2018; State Vs. Faiz Lahari & Ors. pending in the Ld. Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 20, Lucknow U/s 147, 148, 452 I. P. C.; 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act & 3/5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 arises from FIR dated 08-11-2014 bearing Crime No. 325/2014 lodged at police station Vikas Nagar, District Lucknow against the petitioners on the basis of compromise/settlement dated 04- 02-2023 duly verified by the Ld. Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 16, Lucknow vide order dated 21-08-2023." 3. It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 6818 of 2023 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 18.07.2023 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. 4. It appears from the order dated 21.08.2023, as mentioned in the prayer clause, (Annexure No.11, whereas it is wrongly mentioned as 21.08.2022) 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. 5. It is further stated that the order dated 08.07.2023 was passed after taking note of injuries sustained by the injured persons. It is further stated that Section 3/5 of Explosive Act were wrongly added by the Police as the recovery memo in the record is a bogus document for the reason that there is no independent/public witness to the said recovery. More over, there is no permission as per the Section 7 of the Explosive Act has been sought for pursuing with the criminal proceedings. 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 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 Crime No. 325/2014, quoted above, are hereby quashed qua the applicants. 7. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 G. Singh/ Anand/- Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench