Application U/S 482 No. 8880 of 2025, Tariq & Another v. State of U.P. (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 13; Saurabh Lavania, J.; decided October 17, 2025). The applicants sought quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.19830 of 2019 (725/19) (State Versus Tariq & Another) pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I./A.P.), Lucknow — arising out of charge sheet No.01 dated 30.8.2018 from F.I.R. No.0108/2018 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Chowk, District Lucknow — together with the summoning order dated 19.3.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-19, Lucknow, on the basis of a compromise between the parties dated 16.7.2025. By order dated 02.09.2025 the Court had referred the matter to the trial court, which verified the compromise (order dated 12.09.2025, Annexure No.5): the parties were present, admitted entering into the agreement voluntarily, and their signatures were verified by their respective counsels. Relying on Apex Court observations — State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Prashant Bharti, Rajiv Thapar and Ahmad Ali Quraishi (inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., akin to Section 528 BNSS 2023, to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice), and Ramgopal, Gian Singh, Mohd. Ibrahim, Gold Quest International, B.S. Joshi, Jitendra Raghuvanshi, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma, State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, Narindra Singh, Manoj Kumar, Union Carbide, Manohar Lal Sharma and Supreme Court Bar Association (criminal proceedings may in given facts be quashed on settlements between the parties) — and considering the nature of the dispute/crime, the Court held the application liable to be allowed as chances of ultimate conviction were extremely bleak and no useful purpose would be served by allowing the proceedings to continue. The entire proceedings arising out of F.I.R. No.0108/2018 were accordingly quashed qua the applicants, and the Office/Registry was directed to send the order to the court concerned through email/fax for compliance.
