HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2092 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J. 1. Heard Shri Prashant Pandey, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri Adarsh Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no. 4, Shri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for opposite party nos. 1 to 3/State Authorities, 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 No.0349/2023, under Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 IPC lodged at Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow (West). 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 28.10.2024. Thereafter this Court vide order dated 10.09.2025 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 19.09.2025. 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 19.09.2025. 6. The Apex Court in re: Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 343, has observed 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. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Girish Kumar Pande, Prashant Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Adarsh Srivastava Raju And 4 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 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 First Information Report No.0349/2023, under Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 IPC lodged at Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow (West) are hereby quashed. 8. The report of the Senior Registrar dated 19.09.2025 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. October 6, 2025 MVS/- CRLP No. 2092 of 2025 2 (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench