Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125697-DB Court No. - 46 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20019 of 2024 Petitioner :- Amandeep Singh Dhillon And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Utkarsh Khanna Counsel for Respondent :- Abhinav Gaur,G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J. Hon'ble Harvir Singh,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners today in Court, is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Utkarsh Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State, Shri Abhinav Gaur, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and perused the material available on record. 3. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the impugned first information report dated 26.05.2024 giving rise to Case Crime No. 390 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406, 420, 467, 468 IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bannadevi, District Aligarh. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on account of matrimonial dispute, the impugned FIR was lodged against the petitioners, however subsequently, with the intervention of the respected members of the family and the society, parties had resolved their all disputes and differences and now, they do not have any grievance against each other. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that as per the settlement agreement made between the parties, petitioner no.1 has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.11 lacs to the respondent No.4 in lieu of her all claims and dues. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has produced a Demand Draft No.025306 dated 23.07.2025 for a sum of Rs.11 lacs, which he is ready to hand over to the respondent No.4- Smt. Sandeep Kaur, who is also present today in Court. The demand draft of Rs. 11 has been received by respondent No.4. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has next submitted that said compromise has been made between the parties out of their own free will and consent without any coercion and undue influence in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between them. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has next submitted that in view of the said compromise made between the parties, the impugned FIR qua the petitioners be quashed. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has also appeared and has acknowledged the said compromise. In paragraph no.9 of the supplementary affidavit, it has been specifically stated that respondent No.4 is agreeable to accept the amount of Rs.11 lacs as a final settlement amount with an understanding that both the parties will bring a complete closure to disputes between them and will mutually part ways with each other by preferring a petition seeking mutual divorce within a period of one month from the passing of the order. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4, on instructions received from respondent no.4, who is also present in Court, has further submitted that she has no objection, if the impugned FIR qua the petitioners is quashed in order to give quietus to the whole dispute. 11. Learned AGA for the State could not dispute the aforesaid facts and has submitted that he has no objection, if the impugned FIR qua the petitioners is quashed. 12. This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of :- (i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675. (ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2008) 9 SCC 677. (iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, (2008) 16 SCC 1. (iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303. (v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466. (vi) Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641. (vii) State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayanan, (2019) 5 SCC 688. (viii) K. Bharti Devi and Another Vs. State of Telangana and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2695. 13. Wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non-compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278], in which, law expounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein-above, and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case. 15. Accordingly, the impugned first information report dated 26.05.2024 giving rise to Case Crime No. 390 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406, 420, 467, 468 IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bannadevi, District Aligarh, stands quashed. 16. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 SFH Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHIM HUSAIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad