HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7841 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. 1. Heard Sri Varun Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the First Information Report dated 27.07.2025 bearing FIR/Case Crime No.0190 of 2025, under Sections 87, 137(2), 352, 351(2), 324(4) BNS, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Pratapgarh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the parties, out of their own free will, have settled their dispute amicably and in furtherance thereof, they have filed a compromise deed dated 18.08.2025. Thereafter this Court vide order dated 01.09.2025 sent the said compromise deed to the Senior Registrar of this Court with a direction to get the same verified and submit a report and the parties were also directed to appear before the Senior Registrar of this Court for verification of the said compromise. 4. The report of the Senior Registrar of this Court dated 09.09.2025 is on record, according to which, he has verified the compromise. 5. According to the terms of the compromise, parties have settled their dispute. 6. Learned counsel for the parties have not disputed the fact that the parties have settled their dispute amicably and they have filed compromise and the same has been verified by the Senior Registrar of this Court on 09.09.2025. 7. The Apex Court in re: Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan vs. State of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Varun Kumar Gupta, Amit Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Deepak Kumar Mohit Saroj And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 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 amicably 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 proceedings of Case Crime No.0190 of 2025, under Sections 87, 137(2), 352, 351(2), 324(4) BNS, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Pratapgarh registered against the petitioners are hereby quashed. 9. The report dated 09.09.2025 submitted by the Senior Registrar of this Court would be the part of this order. 10. Liberty is given to the concerned parties to file appropriate application before the competent court of law, if the terms and conditions of aforesaid settlement agreement are flouted by any of the party. 11. The petition is, therefore, allowed in terms of compromise entered into between the parties on 18.08.2025. September 22, 2025 Arun CRLP No. 7841 of 2025 2 (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench