HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9427 of 2025 Court No. - 23 HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Shri Kishore Kumar Sharma, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 by filing his Vakalatnama today, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record. 3. The present application has been filed to quash the FIR No.306 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. at Police Station- Sadatganj, District- Lucknow as well as charge sheet dated 16.11.2016 as also Case No.1060 of 2017 (Old Case No.551 of 2017) (State Vs. Neeraj Agnihotri and Another) pending before learned Judicial Magistrate-I Anti Terrorist Squad, Lucknow. 4. From a perusal of record, it transpires that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.971 of 2023 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.02.2023 referred the matter to the concerned court for the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Karunanidhi Yadav, Prateek Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kishore Kumar Sharma Neeraj Agnihotri And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. 5. It further transpires from the order dated 29.08.2025 (Annexure No.1) 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. 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, A482 No. 9427 of 2025 2 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 FIR No.306 of 2016, mentioned 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. November 10, 2025 Anand/- A482 No. 9427 of 2025 3 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench