Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4612 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12718 of 2023 Applicant :- Vishnu Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Applicant and victim both are present. The applicant has been identified by Sri Dileep Kumar Pathak, Advocate and opposite party No.5/victim wife of applicant has been identified by Ms. Archana Rawat who put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No.5 and file the response in the present application alongwith Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. The instant application has been filed for the following main relief:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set-aside the entire proceedings of Special Case No. 1130/2022 (State vs. Vishnu Mishra) case Crime NO. 03/2021 under Sections 363 & 376 IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Itiyathok, District Gonda pending in the court of Additional sessions/Special Judge POCSO Act, Gonda in the light of order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Special Judge POCSO Act, Gonda by which the compromise has been verified in presence of the parties and in presence of both the counsel." It is stated that the applicant and victim were in affair and this relationship was not recognized by the opposite party No.2, who has expired, as is evident from the certificate issued by the Gram Pradhan. Copy of which is annexed as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit. At this stage, on being asked, the opposite party No.5 victim, before this Court stated that her father expired on 17.11.2024. It is further stated that on 27.12.2020 at about 5.30 pm. victim, aged about 21 years, according to her statement made in terms of Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., on her own volition left her parental house and accompanied the applicant and for 15 days both stayed at Muzaffar Nagar and thereafter at Gorakhpur and Ludhiyana and thereafter in the month of March, 2021 solemnized marriage at Arya Samaj Mandir, Lucknow and according to these statements of the opposite party No.5/victim was having pregnancy of six months at that point of time. It is also stated that despite knowing the relationship of applicant and victim the FIR was lodged by opposite party No.2 (since died) making allegations therein that the applicant enticed her minor daughter aged about 17 years on 27.12.2020 at about 5.30 pm.. It is further stated that out of the wedlock of applicant and victim there are two children namely Pari Mishra, whose date of birth his 02.01.2022, and Aryan Mishra, whose date of birth is 21.08.2023. 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 as also that if this Court declined to interfere in the matter then in that eventuality the matrimonial life of applicant and opposite party No.5/victim and their children would be affected rather ruined. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of Special Case No.1130 of 2022 (State vs. Vishnu Mishra) Case Crime No.03/2021, under Sections 363, & 376 IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, are hereby quashed qua 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 :- 23.1.2025 Reena/- Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench