JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Dixit, J.—Counter affidavit and power has been filed by Sri Salil Kumar Srivastava, Advocate today be taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and Sri Salil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/opposite party No. 3 and perused the record. 3. By the instant petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned charge-sheet as well as cognizance order dated 10.11.2006 in Case No. 15166/2006, State v. Ajay Bahal arising out of Case Crime No. 18/2006 for the offences under Sections 406/427/448, I.P.C. Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow. 4. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the parties have entered into a compromise by way of settlement arrived at between the parties and a compromise deed has also been executed on 2.2.2009 whereby all the disputes between the parties to that agreement have been settled outside the Court even by stipulating arbitration clause in case of any future dispute. In the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party No. 3 Smt.Chandra Dixit it has been averred that the opposite party No. 3 has arrived at a settlement/compromise on 2.2.2009 and accordingly all the criminal and civil cases have been sought to be withdrawn and she is neither willing to proceed with criminal prosecution instituted by her nor she is willing to lead any evidence in support of the criminal prosecution launched by her. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed before this Court an order passed by another bench of this Court in criminal misc. case No. 4954 of 2009 on 4.1.2010 which has been annexed as Annexure-20 to the petition whereby the criminal proceedings between the same parties have been quashed in view of the compromise between the parties, although the offences in the said proceedings were non compoundable. 6. Since admittedly the matter has been compromised between the parties as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3, therefore, it would be a futile exercise if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue before the Court below. 7. 6. Since admittedly the matter has been compromised between the parties as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3, therefore, it would be a futile exercise if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue before the Court below. 7. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and others, (2008) 9 SCC 677 and B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 . The Hon’ble Apex Court propounded the law that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or .F.I.R. or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. 8. The provision of Section 482, Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under : “The High Court has the widest jurisdiction to pass orders to secure the ends of justice and, therefore, if the High Court feels that ends of justice require that an order should be made in an application then the High Court will entertain the application is not contemplated by the Court.” 9. The words “Nothing in this Code” used in Section 482 is non-obstante clause, and given it overriding effect over other provisions in the Cr.P.C. 10. The inherent powers are in the nature of extraordinary powers to be used sparingly for achieving the object mentioned in Section 482 of the Code in cases where there is no express provision empowering the High Court to achieve the said object. Inherent power is wide in nature. Such power is to be exercised with great restraint. Wider would be the power, greater should be the restraint. 10. The provision of 482, Cr.P.C. was enacted to emphasize the fact that the High Court has the widest jurisdiction to pass orders to secure the ends of justice and, therefore, if the High Court feels that ends of justice require that an order should be made in an application then High Court will entertain the application and made the necessary orders to secure the interest of justice. 11. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the law propounded by Hon’ble Apex Court in above mentioned cases, it is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of quashing of criminal proceeding and where the inherent power of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is required to be invoked for the purpose of securing the ends of justice. 12. Consequently, the petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is allowed and the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the impugned charge sheet in Case No. 15166/2006, State v. Ajay Bahal arising out of Case Crime No. 18/2006 for the offences under Sections 406/427/448, I.P.C. of Police Station Hazratganj District Lucknow pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate are hereby quashed. ————