Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3532 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9892 of 2024 Applicant :- Ramdaur And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Neeta Singh Chandel,Pramod Kumar Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Normal format quashed Sri Virendra Vikram Singh, Advocate alongwith Sri Arun Kumar, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No. 2 in the Court today, which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 learned AGA for the State of U.P. and gone through the record. The present application has been filed for the following main relief:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned Charge Sheet, dated 06.03.2012, in S.T. No.82/2017 (State Vs. Ramdhani and others), in Crime No.608-A/2011, Under Section 147, 148, 452, 307, 323, 504, 506, 352, 325 I.P.C. relating to Police Station-Kotwali Akbarpur, District-Ambedkar Nagar, pending in the Learned Session Judge Ambedkar Nagar including entire proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof, on the basis of compromise verification on dated-09.09.2024, contained in Annexure No. 1 to the Petition." It is stated that in a sudden altercation between the parties, which took place without pre-meditation of mind, the injuries were sustained by Jitendra Kumar Verma, Ramphool, Dhruv Raj Verma and Suresh Kumar Verma. Upon due examination, no external/visible injury was found by the doctor concerned over the body of Dhruv Raj Verma and Suresh Kumar Verma and according to the doctor concerned, the injuries sustained by Ramphool were simple in nature and except injury No. 1, other injuries sustained by Jitendra Kumar Verma were also simple in nature. It is further stated in view of the aforesaid facts, offence under Section 307 IPC would not be attracted against the applicants and the offence, if any, would fall under Section 324 IPC. It is further stated that taking note of the aforesaid and also the documents in support thereof and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 29.08.2024 referred the matter to the trial court for the purposes of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. It appears from the order dated 09.09.2024 (Annexure No.9) 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. 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 No. 608- A/2011, quoted above, are hereby quashed qua 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 :- 20.1.2025 Arun/- Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench