Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48541-DB Court No. - 9 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7069 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Sumiran And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sooraj Lal,Prahlad Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vikas Vikram Singh Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Court has passed order dated 11.08.2025, which reads as under : "1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the counsel for the petitioners, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Anup Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sooraj Lal, Sri G.D. Bhatt, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State respondent, Sri Vikas Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and perused the record. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned FIR No. 0210 of 2025, dated 26.07.2025 lodged under Sections 319(2), 318(4) 338, 336(3), 340(2), 351(3) of BNS, Police station Khodare, District Gonda. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding opposite party no. 3 not to arrest to the petitioners in pursuance of aforesaid impugned FIR No. 0210 of 2025, dated 26.07.2025 lodged under Sections 319(2), 318(4) 338, 336(3), 340(2), 351(3) of BNS, Police station Khodare, District Gonda, in the interest of justice." 4. In the supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has specifically stated in paragraph nos. 3 to 6 that the petitioners have never claim any right over the plot bearing no. 174/0.5230 hectares situated at Village Khodare (Khodara), Pargana-Burha Payar, Tehsil-Mankapur, District Gonda. The suit in question has been filed only to save himself because later on, the complainant may allege that the petitioner no. 1 had no legal rights over plot in question. The petitioner no. 1 had applied mutation application in the year 2015 and the same was allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that the petitioner no. 1 is ready to move an application for recall of the mutation order dated 03.11.2015 to its own cost. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has stated that if the petitioners are willing to settle the dispute with respondent no. 4, any compromise deed may enter into and the same may be filed before this Court. He further stated that he may file counter affidavit but in the meantime, the petitioners may be directed to settle the dispute amicably in as much as the supplementary affidavit filed today indicates that the petitioners are willing to settle their dispute outside the Court. 6. Let a short counter affidavit be filed within a period of one week. 7. In the meantime, the parties may entered into a compromise and same may be filed before this Court. 8. List the matter on 19.08.2025 as fresh, immediately after fresh cases. 9. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned FIR. 10. The interim order shall be extended only after hearing the parties concerned on the next date." 3. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that in terms of aforesaid order, no compromise could take place between the parties. He submits that although a draft of compromise was prepared on that day but other party did not agree to the terms and conditions of that compromise. 4. Per contra, Sri Vikas Vikram Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4, stated that the terms and condition so proposed by the petitioners were not acceptable to the private respondent for the reason that the same were neither practically feasible nor legally tenable. 5. The interim order dated 11.08.2025 was passed just to provide an opportunity to the petitioners to settle the dispute with private respondent, but the petitioners have failed. 6. Be that as it may, since the first information report in question has been lodged under the cognizable sections and on the basis of allegations made therein, the same may not be quashed therefore, no interim relief can be granted by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, pursuant to the impugned First Information Report. The reliefs prayed in the present writ petition can not be granted for the reasons mentioned herein above. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is always open for the parties to prefer anticipatory bail application before the competent court and if any such anticipatory bail application is filed, the same may be disposed off strictly in accordance with law. Order Date :- 19.8.2025. Rks. Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench