HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22433 of 2025 Court No. - 48 HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J. HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the First Information Report dated 21.08.2025 in Case Crime No. 403 of 025, under sections 69, 352 and 351 (3) BNS, Police Station Shahpur, District Gorakhpur. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that the petitioner no. 1 has already got married with the petitioner no. 2 on 02.09.2025. It is submitted that since the petitioners have already married, therefore, no case is made out against the petitioner no. 1. He has also referred the marriage registration certificate dated 06.09.2025 of the petitioners, the same has been appended as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. It is also submitted that both the petitioners are major. The petitioner no. 1 is aged about 26 years old and he has also referred the High School certificate of petitioner no. 2 according to which the date of birth of the petitioner no. 2 is 28.01.2002 i.e. 23 years old, a copy of the High School Certificate of the petitioner no. 2 has been appended as Annexure No. 3 to this writ petition. It is further submitted that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have also filed a compromise on notary affidavit which has also been appended in the writ petition as Annexure No. 5. 3. Per contra, Sri Satendra Tiwari, learned AGA appearing on behalf of State vehemently opposed the instant petition but could not dispute regarding the date of birth of petitioner no. 2 as well as the marriage registration certificate which has been appended by the petitioner no. 1 in Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sitaram Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Prem Kumar Shankar And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) the present petition. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners and learned AGA appearing on behalf of State respondent. 5. The quashing of an FIR in writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary remedy. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that such power must be exercised sparingly and only to prevent abuse of process or gross injustice. 6. In State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Supreme Court recognizes that vague, omnibus or baseless allegations can warrant quashing. The Court conditioned that quashing should not be routine even, if the case appears weak detailed evidence must not be canvassed at this stage, and the jurisdiction is limited to clear abuse of legal process. 7. The parties are living together. They have also settled all the disputes and compromise deed is also on record. In case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that FIR can be quashed if the parties have settled their disputes amicably, especially in cases of a personal nature. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering the compromise on notary affidavit and there is no societal interest involved in this case and in the interest of justice, the writ petition is allowed and the First Information Report dated 21.08.2025 in Case Crime No. 403 of 2025, under sections 69, 352 and 351 (3) BNS, Police Station Shahpur, District Gorakhpur is accordingly quashed October 6, 2025 Arti CRLP No. 22433 of 2025 2 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad