HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8003 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. 1. Heard Shri Ravindra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri Vijayendra Prakash Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no. 4, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the First Information Report dated 22.06.2025 bearing FIR/Case Crime No.0146 of 2025, under Sections 110, 351 (3), 115 (2) and 352 of BNS, Police Station Itiyathok, District Gonda. 3. Learned counsel for 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 14.08.2025. Thereafter this Court vide order dated 02.09.2025 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. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the parties appeared before the Senior Registrar of this Court on 10.09.2025. According to the terms of the compromise, the parties have settled their dispute. 5. 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 10.09.2025. 6. The Apex Court in re: Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 343, has observed Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ravindra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Harsh Prakash, Vijayendra Prakash Tripathi Imran Ali @ Mane And Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) 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. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the issue in question, particularly, the fact that the present petitioner and the private opposite party have settled the dispute through mediation and the report to this effect has been made part of the record, therefore, compelling the prosecution to prosecute the present petitioner 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 First Information Report dated 22.06.2025 bearing FIR/Case Crime No.0146 of 2025, under Sections 110, 351 (3), 115 (2) and 352 of BNS, Police Station Itiyathok, District Gonda are hereby quashed. 8. The report of the Senior Registrar dated 10.09.2025 would be the part of this order. 9. Liberty is given to the concerned parties to file appropriate application before the competent court of law, if the terms and conditions of aforesaid compromise deed are flouted. 10. The petition is, therefore, allowed in terms of compromise entered into between the parties. September 22, 2025 Virendra CRLP No. 8003 of 2025 2 (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench