Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49337-DB Court No. - 9 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7169 of 2025 Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Patel Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Dubey,Abhishek Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J. 1. Heard Sri Abhishek, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G. D. Bhatt, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and Sri Utkarsh Mishra, Advocate, who has filed his vakalatnama along with counter affidavit, which are taken on record. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed the following main relief(s): "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, thereby quash the impugned first information report dated 18-07-2023, lodged by opposite party No.4, against the petitioners, vide F.I.R. No. 80/2023, under section 498-A, 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Lucknow, contained as ANNEXURE NO.1 to this writ petition, in the interest of justice. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.1, not to arrest or adopt any coercive measures and further stay the proceedings against the petitioners on the basis of the impugned first information report Dated 18-07-2023, lodged by the opposite party no.1 against the petitioners, vide F.I.R. No. 80/2023, (State Versus Divyansh Dhawal and others) under section-498-A, 323, 504, I.P.C. and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Lucknow, pending in the Learned Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, F.T.C. in the interest of justice." 3. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure No. CA-1 of the counter affidavit, which is an original copy of the compromise deed entered into between the parties whereby the parties have decided not to pursue the case and they are willing to settle the dispute amicably. 4. Mr. G. D. Bhatt, learned A.G.A. has stated that if the prosecutrix/ informant is not supporting the prosecution version, rather denying the same, she may record her statement before the court concerned and any appropriate relief may be given to the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has also stated that counter affidavit has been filed by the prosecutrix herself, therefore any appropriate order may be passed settling the dispute finally. 5. Be that as it may, this is a case where the FIR has been lodged under section 376, 504, 506 IPC and her statement under section 164 CrPC has been recorded wherein she has stated that though the physical relation was established with the petitioner was consensual in nature but under bona fide impression that her marriage has been settled with the petitioner and he would be her husband, so she did not object on such relation. She has also stated that after establishing such physical relation, now he is denying for marriage. Therefore, the said physical relation has been established on the pretext of false promise of marriage. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has stated that the marriages of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 have been settled and both are not willing to get married to each other, so there would be no purpose to relegate the issue for trial proceedings. 7. Having considered the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties, we do not find it appropriate to quash the FIR in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the petitioner may very well approach the competent court for filing anticipatory bail application and if such anticipatory bail application is filed, the same may be heard and disposed of finally without giving any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. 8. It is further observed that since the prosecutrix is not supporting the prosecution version, therefore, while disposing of the anticipatory bail application, this fact may be considered by the court concerned. 9. The petitioner may file anticipatory bail application within a period of three weeks from today and if such application is filed, the same may be disposed of in view of the aforesaid observations made herein above. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 (Manoj K.) (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.) Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench