HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1332 of 2020 Court No. - 23 HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed to quash the charge sheet no.02/2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 494 I.P.C. & Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act dated 19.12.2019 submitted against the accused/applicants as well as consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No.4801/2020 (State Vs. Nirmala Chauhan and another), arising out of Case Crime No.53 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 313, 377 of I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Krishna Nagar, District- Lucknow, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Lucknow, on the basis of compromise. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that during pendency of this application the parties have entered into compromise, copy of which in original is annexed as Annexure No.MA-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 30.08.2024. 4. It transpires from the record that the trial court on the basis of compromise/settlement dated 23.05.2024, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had disposed of criminal complaint and ended the proceedings on the basis of said compromise dated 23.05.2024 vide judgment and order dated 02.07.2024, copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.MA-3 to the supplementary affidavit. 5. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vijyant Nigam, Subhash Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Neeranjan, Ravindra Nath Pandey Prafull Mohan Singh Chauhan And Anr. .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow And Ors. .....Opposite Party(s) 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.53 of 2019, mentioned above, are hereby quashed qua the applicants. 6. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance. December 4, 2025 Anand/- A482 No. 1332 of 2020 2 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench