HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3034 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. 1. Heard Sri Prem Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G. D. Bhatt, learned AGA for the State and Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party No.4. 2. This Court has passed the order dated 30.07.2025 which reads as under: "We have gone through the report of the Senior Registrar dated 7.5.2025 wherein learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Prem Prakash Singh had requested for adjournment saying that he wanted to file a better compromise to mention the correct name of father of petitioner no.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he has filed a better compromise deed mentioning the correct name of the father of petitioner no.3 through an application dated 7.5.2025. The said application has already been directed to be listed. We therefore direct the parties to appear before the Senior Registrar on 2.8.2025 again for verification of the compromise now filed through supplementary affidavit. List this matter thereafter." 3. Learned counsel for the parties have stated that the dispute in question has been settled through a compromise deed and parties are not willing to contest the case pursuant to the impugned FIR dated 15.03.2025 bearing FIR/Case Crime No.0066 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352 & 351(2) B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 3(1) r and 3(1) s and Section 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (amendment 2015) at Police Station Jahangeerganj, District Ambedkarnagar. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Prem Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Ravi Sharma And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further stated that the impugned FIR may be set-aside/quashed on the basis of compromise. 5. Learned AGA has stated that he may not dispute on the fact that the parties have entered into compromise and such compromise has been verified, therefore, any appropriate order may be passed. 6. The perusal of the compromise deed discloses that the parties have settled their dispute amicably and they are not willing to contest the cases, which have been indicated in the compromise deed. 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. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the issue in question, particularly, the fact that the present petitioners and the private opposite party have settled their dispute through a compromise and the report to this effect has been made part of the record, therefore, compelling the prosecution to prosecute the present petitioners 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 entire proceedings of the ase Crime No.0066 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352 & 351(2) B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 3(1) r and 3(1) s and Section 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (amendment 2015) at Police Station Jahangeerganj, District Ambedkarnagar, are hereby quashed. 9. The original compromise deed dated 07.04.2025 and the verification report dated 02.08.2025 submitted by the Senior Registrar of this Court, CRLP No. 3034 of 2025 2 would be the part of this order. 10. The petition is, therefore, allowed. September 17, 2025 Reena/- CRLP No. 3034 of 2025 3 (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench