HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7345 of 2024 Court No. - 30 HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J. HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 4, even in the revised call. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on account of matrimonial discord, the impugned First Information Report was lodged, which was challenged before this Court by means of instant writ petition. 4. This Court vide order dated 03.10.2024 had referred the matter to the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court in order to enable the parties to explore the possibility of resolving their dispute through mediation. 5. Pursuant to the said order, the parties appeared before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court and with the help of the Mediators, the dispute between the parties has been genuinely and amicably settled and a settlement/agreement dated 19.05.2025 has been drawn between the parties, a copy of which has been annexed with the writ petition and shall form part of the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that pursuant Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Raghvendra P. Singh, Mohd. Sheraj Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Arpit Gupta, Brajesh Kumar Deo, Manu Dixit Sujeet Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Others .....Respondent(s) the said settlement/agreement, the parties have decided to live separately in future and to dissolve their marriage with mutual consent. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that as per the settlement/agreement arrived between the parties, an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-(fifteen lacs) was agreed to be paid by the petitioner to respondent no. 4, who is the wife of petitioner, in lieu of all her claims and dues. 8. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- (seven lacs fifty thousand) was paid by the petitioner to respondent no. 4 vide demand draft no. 573688 dated 21.03.2025 and the balance amount was to be paid after dissolution of marriage under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that after the second motion, the marriage between the parties has already been dissolved and the balance amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- (seven lacs fifty thousand) has also been paid to respondent no. 4 through demand draft no. 575197 dated 22.10.2025 and now nothing remains to be paid. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that in view of the settlement/agreement arrived at between the parties, the impugned First Information Report and consequent proceeding, if any, be quashed. 11. Learned AGA for the State could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 12. This Court is not unmindful of the judgments passed by 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) Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466. CRLP No. 7345 of 2024 2 (vi) Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641. (vii) State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayanan, (2019) 5 SCC 688. (viii) K. Bharti Devi and Another Vs. State of Telangana and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2695. 13. 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. 14. 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 instant case. 15. Accordingly, the impugned First Information Report dated 23.08.2024 bearing Case Crime No. 0045 of 2024, under Sections 498-A/313/323/342/377/504/506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Lucknow and consequent proceedings, if any, are quashed. 16. Consequently, the instant writ petition is allowed. November 24, 2025 kkv/ CRLP No. 7345 of 2024 3 (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench