HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13021 of 2024 Court No. - 46 HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J. HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Pawan Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.3. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the impugned first information report dated 15.07.2024 giving rise to Case Crime No.462 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Naini, District Prayagraj. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent no.3 is the wife of petitioner no.1 and other petitioners are his family members and on account of matrimonial discord, the impugned first information report was lodged but subsequently, this Court, vide order dated 31.07.2024 had referred the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court in order to enable the parties 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, the dispute between the parties was amicably settled and a settlement agreement dated 19.12.2024 was drawn between the parties, a copy of which has been annexed with the writ petition and shall form part of it. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that pursuant to the said settlement agreement, petitioner no.1 has agreed to pay a sum of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manoj Kumar Tripathi, Vinod Kumar Tirpathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Pawan Kumar Shukla, Ras Bihari Pandey Piyush Mishra And 4 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Rs.95,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety Five Lakhs Only) to respondent no.3. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- was paid to respondent no.3 through Demand Draft No.506095 dated 28.11.2024 and Rs.30,00,000/- was paid to respondent no.3 through Demand Draft No.506325 dated 15.02.2025. The balance amount of Rs.35,00,000/- is being handed over today to respondent no.3, who is present in Court today and identified by her counsel, through Demand Draft No.506408 dated 08.09.2025, a photocopy of which is taken on record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that the entire due amount has been paid to respondent no.3 and now there remains nothing to be paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that in view of compromise made between the parties, the impugned first information report be quashed. 7. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 has also appeared and has acknowledged the said compromise. He has further submitted, on instructions, that the entire amount of Rs.95,00,000/-, as agreed upon between the parties, has already been received by her. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 has further submitted, on instructions, that in view of the said settlement agreement made between the parties, respondent no.3 has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed. 8. Learned A.G.A. for the State could not dispute the aforesaid facts and has submitted that he has no objection, if the entire proceedings are quashed. 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. (vi) Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641. CRLP No. 13021 of 2024 2 (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 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 above mentioned case. 12. Accordingly, the impugned first information report dated 15.07.2024 giving rise to Case Crime No. 462 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Naini, District Prayagraj, is hereby quashed. 13. The instant writ petition stands allowed. September 8, 2025 Kushala CRLP No. 13021 of 2024 3 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- KUSHAL AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad