HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8911 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Sri Satish Chandra Verma, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No. 2 in the Court today, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 3. The present application has been filed for the following main relief(s):- "Wherefore it is most respectfully prayed that Hon;ble this court kindly be partly quash the impugned Chargsheet along with cognigence dated 17/09/2020 passed by A.C.J.M-3 Court No 27 Lucknow arising out of Case Crime No 395/2019 of police station -Saadatganj, District- Lucknow of Criminal case no.- 408/2020, U/S 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C and 3/4 D.P.Act (State Vs. Faiz Abbas & Other's) on the basis of compromise pending before Judicial Magistrate (A.T.S) Lucknow in the interest of justice. It is further prayed that Hon'ble this court kindly be stayed the further proceeding in Criminal case No.- 408/2020, U/S 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C and 3/4 D.P.Act (State Vs. Faiz Abbas & Other's) pending in Judicial Magistrate (a.t.s.) Lucknow during pendency of this petition in the interest of justice. It is further prayed that Hon;ble this court kindly be quash the entire proceeding of case no 408/2020 under section 498A, 323, 506 I.P.C and 3/4 D.P.Act arising out of case crime No-395/2019 police station -Saadatganj, District- Lucknow (State Vs.Faiz Abbas & Other's) pending before court Judicial Magistrate (A.T.S.) Lucknow in the interest of justice." 4. It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 11437 of 2023 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 22.11.2023 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shahid Raza Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Faiz Abbas And 6 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. It appears from the order dated 30.11.2023 (Annexure No.6) 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, 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, which is essentially matrimonial in nature, 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. 395 of 2019, indicated in prayer clause, quoted 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 3, 2025 Arun/- A482 No. 8911 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench