JUDGMENT : Saurabh Lavania, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State of U.P. as well as learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the following main relief (s):- "For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying Petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, it is expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire proceeding Charge Sheet No. 17/2021, Case Crime No. 4/2021, U/S-498-A, 323,504,506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Protection of Muslim Women's Marriage Rights Act and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Mahila Thana, District- Sitapur, 'State Versus Mohd. Faheem and others' Pending before Civil Judge (Junior Division) F.T.C./CA W. District Sitapur contained in Annexure No.4, on the basis of compromise, to the accompanying affidavit, in the, interest of Justice. It is further prayed that during the pendency of the present Petition under section 482 C.R.P.C./528 BNSS, this Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the Charge Sheet No. 17/2021, Case Crime No. 4/2021, U/S- 498-A, 323,504,506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Protection of Muslim Women's Marriage Rights Act and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Mahila Thana, District- Sitapur, 'State Versus Mohd. Faheem and others' Pending before Civil Judge (Junior Division) F.T.C./CA W. District Sitapur contained in Annexure No.4, on the basis of compromise, in the interest of justice." 3. It appears that after considering the averments made in the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.390 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 17.1.2025 referred the matter to the concerned court for the purpose of verification of the compromise entered into between the parties. 4. It appears from the order dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure No.2) 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. 5. 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. 5. 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, 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. 6. Accordingly, present application is allowed . 6. Accordingly, present application is allowed . Consequently, the entire proceedings of Charge Sheet No.17/2021 relating to Case Crime No.0004/2021, U/S-498-A, 323,504,506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Protection of Muslim Women's Marriage Rights Act and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Mahila Thana, District- Sitapur, (State Versus Mohd. Faheem and others), pending before Civil Judge (Junior Division) F.T.C./C.A.W., District Sitapur, 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.