JUDGMENT :

SHAMIM AHMED, J.

1. Heard Shri Desh Deepak Verma, the learned counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant applicants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicants namely, Ambuj Trivedi, Arun Trivedi and Pushplta Trivedi with a prayer to quash the charge sheet arising out of Case Crime No. 718 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Barabanki and also quash the entire proceedings in Case No. 1683 of 2020, State vs. Ambuj Trivedi and Others, in the light of compromise which is verified by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 18, Barabanki vide report dated 01.11.2022 pending before it.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in compliance of the order dated 20.10.2022 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 7574 of 2022, the applicants filed compromise deed dated 01.10.2022 before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 18, Lucknow and the concerned court vide its order dated 01.11.2022 verified the said compromise in presence of the applicants and opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit filed in support of the present application.

4. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that since parties have entered into compromise, which has also been verified by the court below, therefore, no useful purpose would be served if the proceedings of the aforesaid case go on further.

5. Learned counsel for the parties has drawn attention of this Court and placed reliance on the following judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in support of their case:

(i) B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana and Others, 2003 (4) ACC 675

(ii) Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2012 (10) SCC 303

(iii) Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory through Administrator, 2013 (11) SCC 697

(iv) Narendra Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, 2014 (6) SCC 466

(v) Yogendra Yadav and Others vs. State of Jharkhand, 2014 (9) SCC 653

6. Summarizing the ratio of all the above cases the latest judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 and in paragraph no. 16, the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the broad principles with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of compromise/settlement between the parties which emerges from precedent of the subjects as follows:

“(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised:

(i) to secure the ends of justice.

(ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each