HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11113 of 2025 Court No. - 30 HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J. HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Sri Nitin Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit today in Court. The same is taken on record. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has filed supplementary affidavits today in Court, which are taken on record. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State, Sri Santosh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are wholly innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has next submitted that even according to the prosecution own case, no injury whatsoever has been caused to the victim. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably and genuinely settled and a settlement agreement dated 26.11.2025 has been drawn between the parties, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No.1 to the supplementary affidavit. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has also appeared and has acknowledged the said settlement agreement and further in paragraph No. 8 it has been submitted that the dispute between the parties has amicably and genuinely been resolved and the respondent No.3 has no objection, if the impugned F.I.R. is quashed. 8. Learned AGA for the State also has no objection. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nitin Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Rohitash Kumar Singh Anshika Awasthi And Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) 9. This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of:- (i). B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675. (ii). Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2008) 9 SCC 677. (iii). Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others, (2008) 16 SCC 1. (iv). Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303. (v). Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466. 10. Wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non- compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and another [2013 (83) ACC 278], in which, law expounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of the present case. 12. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of impugned F.I.R. dated 09.10.2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 878 of 2025, under Sections 309(4), 351 (3), 109, 115(2), 340(2), 336 (3), 338, 61 and 318(4) BNS at Police Station Sushant Golf City, District Lucknow Southern (Commissionerate Lucknow) are hereby quashed. 13. The instant writ petition is accordingly allowed. November 27, 2025 Arvind CRLP No. 11113 of 2025 2 (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench