HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6613 of 2024 Court No. - 30 HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J. HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. List has been revised. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent no.4 even in the revised call. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on account of matrimonial discord, the impugned F.I.R. was lodged, however subsequently, this Court vide order dated 19.09.2024 had directed the parties to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court in order to explore the possibility of resolving the dispute through mediation. 4. Pursuant to the said order, the parties appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and with the help of the Mediators, all the dispute between the parties has been resolved and now, they do not have any grievance against each other. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next drawn the attention of the Court to the settlement agreement dated 25.10.2024 made between the parties, a copy of which has been annexed with the instant writ petition and shall form part of the record. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shaiphali Nag, Priyanka Nag Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Desh Deepak Singh Atul Shukla .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry Home Affairs Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that pursuant to the said compromise made between the parties, the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to the respondent no.4 in lieu of all her claims and dues and now, nothing remains to be paid. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that in view of the said compromise made between the parties, the impugned F.I.R. against the petitioner be quashed. 8. Learned AGA for the State could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 9. This Court is not unmindful of the judgements 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. (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. 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 CRLP No. 6613 of 2024 2 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 instant case. 12. Accordingly, the impugned first information report dated 24.05.2024 giving rise to Case Crime No. 178 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow, is hereby quashed. 13. Consequently, the instant writ petition is allowed. November 12, 2025 Nadim CRLP No. 6613 of 2024 3 (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- NADIM ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench