HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9995 of 2025 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Ms. Shashi Singh, Advocate, is present on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 by filing her Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P., learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and perused the record. 3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants praying for quashing of the summoning order dated-21/01/2023, passed by the learned Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), F.T.C/ Judicial Magistrate (Crime Against Women), Etawah, complaint case no. 3948/2021, Nirmala Devi -VS-- Babita @ Yasika and another, under section 406 323, 504 of Indian penal code, District-Lucknow, as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case no. 3948/2021, Nirmala Devi -VS-- Babita @ Yasika and another, in respect of the applicants. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that parties do not want to pursue the case any further and they have entered into compromise. He further submits that vide order dated 09.09.2025 a direction was given to the trial court to verify the factum of compromise executed by the parties. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, learned trial court had verified the contents of compromise vide its order dated 19.09.2025. 5. Ms. Shashi Singh, Advocate, appearing for the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, agrees the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, and she does not have any objection to the aforesaid proceedings being quashed. 6. Learned A.G.A. has fairly conceded that compromise has been effected between the parties and the same has duly been verified by the trial court. 7. Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that inherent power can be used to do real and substantial justice as has been held in Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab, 2012 AIR SCW 5333, B.S. Joshi and others Vs State of Haryana, (2003) 3 SCC 675 and Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466. Hence, inherent power Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Neeraj Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Babita @ Yashika And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) can be exercised to speed up the process of ending the criminal proceedings where the settlement is arrived at between the parties. 8. In view of the aforesaid and the fact that parties do not want to pursue the case any further, the matter is purely of personal nature, which has been mutually settled between the parties by way of the compromise, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with the matter further. 9. For the discussions made above, the present application is allowed. Summoning order dated-21/01/2023, passed by the learned Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), F.T.C/ Judicial Magistrate (Crime Against Women), Etawah, complaint case no. 3948/2021, Nirmala Devi -VS-- Babita @ Yasika and another, under section 406 323, 504 of Indian penal code, District-Lucknow, as well as the entire aforesaid complaint case no. 3948/2021, Nirmala Devi -VS-- Babita @ Yasika and another, in respect of the applicants, is hereby quashed. November 25, 2025 A.Nigam A482 No. 9995 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench