Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135775-DB Court No. - 46 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23109 of 2024 Petitioner :- Nighat Parveen Alias Gudiya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghav Arora Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. AND Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23068 of 2024 Petitioner :- Roshan Alias Naved Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghav Arora Counsel for Respondent :- Kumar Dhananjay,G.A. AND Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23078 of 2024 Petitioner :- Nafees Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghav Arora Counsel for Respondent :- Kumar Dhananjay,G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J. Hon'ble Abdul Shahid,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent and perused the record. 2. The aforesaid criminal writ petitions have been filed against the impugned F.I.R. dated 23.11.2024 registered vide Case Crime No. 841 of 2024, under Sections 85, 74, 115(2), 352, 109 and 89 of B.N.S., Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and Section 3/4 of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, Police Station Vijay Nagar, District City (Commissionerate Ghaziabad). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on account of matrimonial discord, the impugned FIR was registered against the petitioners. The impugned FIR was challenged before this Court by means of the aforesaid writ petitions. 4. This Court vide order dated 17.12.2024 had directed the parties to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court in order to explore the possibility of settling the dispute through mediation between them. Pursuant to the order dated 17.12.2024, the parties appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and with the help of the Mediators, all the disputes between the parties have been resolved and a settlement agreement dated 27.05.2025 has been drawn between them, a copy of which has been annexed with the writ petitions and shall form part of it. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has further submitted that pursuant to the said agreement, Roshan @ Naved, husband of respondent no. 5 had agreed to pay her a sum of Rs. 9 lacs in lieu of all her claims and dues. 6. It is next submitted that entire due amount of Rs. 9 lacs has already been paid to respondent no. 5 vide two Demand Draft Nos. 058334 and 058335 dated 07.05.2025 for a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- each and now, nothing remains to be paid. 7. It is next submitted that in view of the compromise made between the parties, the impugned F.I.R. be quashed. 8. Learned counsel for respondent no. 5 has also appeared and has acknowledged the said compromise between the parties and has further acknowledged the fact that an amount of Rs. 9 lacs vide two demand drafts of Rs. 4,50,000/- each, has been received by the respondent no. 5 and now, nothing remains to be paid. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 has further submitted, on instructions, that in view of the compromise dated 27.05.2025 arrived at between the parties, respondent no. 5 has no objection, if the impugned F.I.R. is quashed. 10. Learned A.G.A. could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. Accordingly, the impugned first information report dated 23.11.2024 giving rise to Case Crime No. 841 of 2024, under Sections 85, 74, 115(2), 352, 109 and 89 of B.N.S., Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and Section 3/4 of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, Police Station Vijay Nagar, District City (Commissionerate Ghaziabad), are hereby quashed qua all the three petitioners. 15. Accordingly, these writ petitions stand allowed. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Gss Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad