HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 241 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. 1. Heard Sri Farhat Jamal Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned AGA for the State respondent and Sri Amjad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and perused the record. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the First Information Report dated 14.12.2024 bearing FIR No. 0216 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 313, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3 & 4 D.P. Act, Police Station Vikasnagar, District Lucknow. 3. This Court vide order dated 16.01.2025 directed the parties to appear before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court for settlement of their dispute through mediation. 4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the parties appeared before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court and the Mediators have submitted its report dated 07.08.2025, which is on record. The report of the Mediators dated 07.08.2025 indicates that the mediation was successfully completed. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party no.3 has also submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled through mediation. 6. Learned counsels for both the parties have given undertaking on behalf of the parties that the parties shall abide by all terms and conditions of the settlement agreement dated 07.08.2025. 7. The Apex Court in re: Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 343, has observed Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Farhat Jamal Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Amjad Siddiqui Jayant Edwin Rawson And 4 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) that even if the offence(s) in question is / are not compoundable within the scope of Section 320 Cr.P.C. even then considering the facts and circumstances of the case in question the Constitutional Court may allow the parties to compound such offence(s) on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the issue in question, particularly, the fact that the present petitioner and the private opposite party have settled the dispute through mediation and the report to this effect has been made part of the record, therefore, compelling the prosecution to prosecute the present petitioner would be a futile exercise and in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in re: B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; 2003 (4) SCC 675, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471 and Parbatbhai Ahir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, the proceedings of the First Information Report dated 14.12.2024 bearing FIR No. 0216 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 313, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3 & 4 D.P. Act, Police Station Vikasnagar, District Lucknow against the petitioners are hereby quashed. 9. The mediation report dated 07.08.2025 submitted by the Mediators would be the part of this order. 10. Liberty is given to opposite party no.3 to file appropriate application before the competent court of law, if the terms and conditions of aforesaid settlement agreement are flouted. 11. The petition is, therefore, allowed in terms of compromise entered into between the parties before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre on 07.08.2025. September 22, 2025 Arun CRLP No. 241 of 2025 2 (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench