HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10393 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Sri Jai Vardhan Srivastava, 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):- " That for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned Charge Sheet dated 13.04.2013 bearing Charge Sheet No. 21/2013, impugned summoning order dated 12.05.2025 passed by Add. Civil Judge (J.D.)-06, Gonda, relating to Case Crime No. 26 of 2013, Under Section- 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, I.P.C, Police Station-Kauriya, District- Gonda, as well entire proceeding of the Case No. 18/2013 (State Versus Ajju alias Ajay Kumar and others) pending in Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C.-First, Gonda, as contained in Annexure No. 1 and 2 respectively to this petition in the interest of justice." 4. It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 9061 of 2025 and the documents in support thereof as also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants, this Court vide order dated 17.10.2025 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. 5. It appears from the order dated 12.11.2025 (Annexure No. 3) 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Malik Meraj Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ajju @ Ajay Kumar Chaturvedi And 4 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings arising out of aforesaid Case Crime, 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. December 9, 2025 DiVYa A482 No. 10393 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench