Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110613-DB Court No. - 46 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 762 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ajay Sharma And 1 Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam,Madhaw Pandey,Vinod Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satyendra Kumar Singh Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J. Hon'ble Harvir Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and perused the record, however learned counsel for respondent No.3 is not present even in the revised call. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on account of the property dispute, the impugned F.I.R was lodged against the petitioners, however subsequently, this Court vide order dated 07.02.2024 had referred the dispute to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, in order to enable the parties to explore the possibility to settle all their disputes and differences through mediation. 3. Pursuant to the said order dated 07.02.2024, the parties appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and with the help of the Mediators, all the disputes and differences between the parties have been amicably and genuinely settled and a final settlement agreement dated 13.09.2024 has been drawn between the parties, a copy of which has been annexed with the record of this petition, which shall form part of it. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has next submitted that as per the final settlement agreement dated 13.09.2024, the petitioners were required to pay an amount of Rs.27,95,000/- to the respondent No.3 in lieu of all his claims and dues. Out of the said amount, the entire amount had already been paid by the petitioners to respondent No.3 and now nothing remains to be paid. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has next submitted that in view of the final settlement agreement made between the parties, the impugned F.I.R is be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has not appeared even in the revised call, however learned AGA could not dispute the aforesaid settlement. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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 present case. 10. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of impugned F.I.R. dated 8.07.2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 313 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506 IPC, Police Station Shivpur District Varanasi, are hereby quashed. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Order Date :- 10.7.2025/SFH Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHIM HUSAIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad