Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49402-DB Court No. - 9 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2457 of 2025 Petitioner :- Divyansh Dhawal And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabh Jot Kaur,Hershpreet Kaur Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Raghunath Singh Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J. 1. Heard Ms. Firdaus, advocate, holding brief of Smt. Prabh Jot Kaur, learned counsel for the petitionerS, Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and Sri Raghunath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 2. This Court has passed the order dated 25.03.2025, which reads as under:- "1. Shri Raghunath Singh, Advocate has filed his 'vakalatnama' on behalf of the opposite party no.4/complainant, the same is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State- respondents as well as Shri Raghunath Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.4/complainant and perused the record. 3. This petition seeks issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the F.I.R. dated 18.07.2023, lodged by opposite party no.4, bearing F.I.R./Case Crime No. 80 of 2023, under Sections 498- A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Lucknow. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that parties have settled the dispute amicably. He further drawn the attention of this Court towards Annexure No.3, which is an original compromise deed entered into between the petitioners and opposite party no.4. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the first installment of payment has already been accepted by the opposite party no.4. The demand draft of Rs. 3,00,000/- pertaining to the second installment is given by the petitioners to the opposite party no.4 today in Court, who is present in person. 6. Learned counsel for both the parties state that parties have entered into a compromise and they are not willing to contest the case against each other. 7. So as to verify the contents and parties of the compromise deed, let the original deed of compromise be sent to the Senior Registrar of this Court. On 27.03.2025 parties shall appear before the Senior Registrar for the purpose of verification of compromise deed as well as parties. 8. The Senior Registrar of this Court after due verification shall submit his report before this Court. 9. List this case on 4th April, 2025 along with the report of the Senior Registrar. 10. Till the next date of listing, the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid FIR/Case Crime number. 11. When the case is next listed, the name of Shri Raghunath Singh shall be shown in the cause list as counsel for opposite party no.4." 3. In compliance of the aforesaid order, parties appeared before the Senior Registrar of this Court on 27.03.2025 and the Senior Registrar submitted verification report dated 27.03.2025, which reads as under:- "Vide Hon'ble Court's order dated 25-03-2025, petitioners and opposite party No. 4 were directed to appear before the undersigned today for verification of compromise deed. The said compromise has been annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the petition. Today, petitioners namely (1) Divyansh Dhawal S/o Late Rajeev Dhawal, (2) Smt. Bharti Dhawal W/o Late Rajeev Dhawal and (3) Himanshu Dhawal S/o Late Rajeev Dhawal alongwith their learned counsel Ms Harsh Preet Kaur, Advocate and opposite party No. 4 Smt. Priya Sharma W/o Divyansh Dhawal. D/o Late Rajkumar Sharma alongwith her learned counsel Shri Raghunath Singh, Advocate are present before me. Vakalatnama of counsels for both the parties is on record. The proof of identity ie. Aadhar Card is produced by both the parties, at the time of verification. The contents of the said compromise deed have been read over and explained to both the parties to the compromise deed and they have stated that they have executed the same according to their free will and as a token there of they have affixed their photographs, put T.Is. and signatures, which are duly attested and verified by their respective counsels. In view of the said facts, the compromise between petitioners namely (1) Divyansh Dhawal S/o Late Rajeev Dhawal, (2) Smt. Bharti Dhawal W/o Late Rajeev Dhawal and (3) Himanshu Dhawal S/o Late Rajeev Dhawal and opposite party No. 4 Smt. Priya Sharma W/o Divyansh Dhawal, D/o Late Rajkumar Sharma is being verified by me today i.e. 27th day of March, 2025. The report is submitted before Hon'ble Court for orders." 4. Learned counsels for the parties have stated that they are not willing to contest the case pursuant to the impugned FIR dated 18.07.2023, lodged by opposite party No.4, bearing F.I.R./Case Crime No. 80 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Lucknow. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the impugned FIR may be set aside/quashed on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. 6. Learned A.G.A. has not disputed the fact that the parties have entered into compromise and the compromise deed has been verified by the Senior Registrar of this Court, therefore, he has stated that any appropriate order, in the interest of justice, may be passed. 7. The Apex Court in re: Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 343, has observed 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. Not only the above, considering the facts and circumstances of the issue in question and other dictums of the Apex Court 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 First Information Report dated 18.07.2023 bearing F.I.R./Case Crime No. 80 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Lucknow, is hereby quashed in respect of the present petitioners on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. 9. The petition is, therefore, allowed. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 (Manoj K.) (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.) Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench