HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 471 of 2024 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P., Shri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava holding brief of Shri Salik Ram, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside/ quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 7028 of 2020 (Pragya Pandey Vs. Manmohan Pandey and others) under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act pertaining to Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh as well as impugned order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) F.T.C.-1, Pratapgarh thereby rejecting the application moved by the petitioners under Section 177/178 of Cr.P.C. regarding to jurisdiction error, as. contained in Annexure No.1 to this petition, in the interest of justice. 3. It has been submitted that a compromise agreement was entered between the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 on 19.10.2022. There is matrimonial dispute. Due to mutual agreement divorce has also taken place. 4. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has no objection in this regard. 5. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sumit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Salik Ram Tiwari, Sanjeev Kumar Dwivedi Manmohan Pandey And 2 Other .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Haryana, (2003) 3 SCC 675 and Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466. Hence, inherent power can be exercised to speed up the process of ending the criminal proceedings where the settlement is arrived at between the parties. 6. In view of the aforesaid and the fact that parties do not want to pursue the case any further, the matter 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 and the entire Complaint Case No. 7028 of 2020 (Pragya Pandey Vs. Manmohan Pandey and others) under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act pertaining to Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh as well as impugned order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) F.T.C.-1, Pratapgarh are hereby quashed, on the basis of mutual compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties. 10. Office is directed to communicate this order to trial court forthwith. October 13, 2025 Muk A482 No. 471 of 2024 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench