HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5110 of 2026 Court No. - 47 HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Prateek Rai, the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned AGA representing State-respondents 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Yogesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant/respondent 4 Harsh Garg who has put in appearance by filing a short counter affidavit along with his vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record. 2. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner Gaurav Goyal has approached this Court by means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the FIR dated 31.01.2026 lodged by first informant/respondent 4 Harsh Garg and registered as Case Crime No. 73 of 2026, under sections 352 and 109(1) of BNS, Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Commissionerate Ghaziabad. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that after aforementioned FIR was lodged parties amicably settled their dispute outside the court. On the basis of settlement so arrived at between the parties a compromise was entered into. Subsequently the terms of the settlement were reduced to writing by way of a settlement agreement dated 19.02.2026. A copy of the said settlement agreement has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 5. On the above premise, the learned counsel for petitioner thus submits that dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute. Offence complained Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Eishan Mehta, Prateek Rai, Sunil Kumar Upadhyay, Vipin Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Gaurav Goyal .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) of is not a crime against State or society. As such there cannot be any legal impediment in accepting the compromise entered into by the parties. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the compromise entered into by the parties has been acted upon. As such on date there is no lis between the parties. At this juncture the learned counsel for petitioner invited the attention of Court to paragraph 3 of the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of first informant/respondent 4 wherein the first informant/respondent 4 has clearly admitted the compromise entered into by the parties. For ready reference paragraph 3 of the short counter affidavit filed by first informant/respondent 4 is extracted herein under:- "3. That during the pendency of the investigation, the deponent (First Informant) and the injured person, Rinku, have amicably settled the dispute with the Petitioner, Gaurav Goyal, by executing a formal Settlement Deed dated 19.02.2026. This settlement deed is already annexed to main Criminal Misc. Writ Petition." 6. It is then contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that once the parties had entered into a compromise no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the criminal prosecution of petitioner. In case the criminal prosecution of petitioner is allowed to continue, the same shall result in loss of public time and money. It is thus contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that in view of above, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed by this Court. 7. Per contra the learned AGA representing State-respondents 1, 2, 3 does not oppose the present writ petition. Learned AGA submits that since offence complained of is private in nature and not a crime against State or Society, therefore, he cannot have any objection in case the present writ petition is decided by this Court in terms of the compromise entered into by the parties. 8. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant/respondent 4 on the other hand submits that he has received instructions not to oppose the present writ petition. According to the learned counsel representing first informant/respondent 4, it is an admitted fact that CRLP No. 5110 of 2026 2 the parties have entered into a compromise. Moreover the said compromise has been acted upon. It is thus contended by the learned counsel representing first informant/respondent 4 that once the first informant/respondent 4 has himself entered into a compromise with the accused-petitioner which fact is clearly evident from the recital contained in paragraph 3 of the short counter affidavit filed by first informant/respondent 4 then in that circumstance he cannot have any grievance in case the present writ petition is decided by this Court in terms of the compromise entered into by the parties. 9. Be that as it may, the crux of the matter is that the parties have entered into a compromise, which has been acted upon. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of Apex Court: i. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675 ii. Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 iii. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677] iv. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1 v. Shiji @ Pappu and Others VS. Radhika and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705 vi. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 vii. K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226 viii. Dimpey Gujral and others Vs. Union Territory through Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and others, (2013) 11 SCC 497 ix. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 x. Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2014) 9 SCC 653 xi. Shlok Bhardwaj Vs. Runika Bhardwaj, (2015) 2 SCC 721 xii. C.B.I. Vs. Maninder Singh (2016) 1 SCC 389 CRLP No. 5110 of 2026 3 xiii. C.B.I. Vs. Sadhu Ram Singla and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350 xiv. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 xv. Anita Maria Dias and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 290 xvi. Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar and Another Vs. Union of India and others, (2018) 10 SCC, 443 (Constitution Bench) xvii. State of M.P. VS. Dhruv Gurjar and Another, (2019) 5 SCC 570 xviii. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 688 xix. Rampal Vs. State of Haryana, AIR online 2019 SC 1716 xx. Arun Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another (2020) 3 SCC 736 xxi. (Ramgopal and Another Vs. The State of M.P.), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834 xxii. Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC Online 936. xxiii. State of Kerala VS. Hafsal Rahman N.R., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary Nos. 24362 of 2021. xiv. Shatrughna Atmaram Patil and Another Vs. Vinod Dodhu Chaudhary and Another, (2024) 4 SCC 458. xv. Suraj Singh Gujar and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2414. xvi. K. Bharti Devi and Another Vs. State of Telangana and Another, (2024) 10 SCC 384. xvii. Ramji Lal Bairwa and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3193. xviii. H.N. Pandakumar Vs. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC CRLP No. 5110 of 2026 4 38. wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. However, Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan (Supra) held that no compromise can be made in respect of offences against society as they are not private in nature. Similarly in Ram Pal Vs. State of Haryana (Supra) it has been held that no compromise can be made in cases relating to rape and sexual assault. Recently, the Apex Court in Daxaben (supra) has held that no compromise can be made in matter under Section 306 IPC. In state of Kerala Vs. Hafsal Rahman (Supra), Court has held that no compromise can be entertained in matters under the POCSO Acts. 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 the law expounded by the Apex court in some of the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail. Recently Apex court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur (Supra) has laid down the following guidelines with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings as well compromise in criminal proceedings in paragraphs 16 to 16.10 of the report, which read as under: "16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarized in the following propositions 16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court; 16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. 16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power; CRLP No. 5110 of 2026 5 16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; 16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated; 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences; 16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned; 16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute; 16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9 above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance." Recently in Ramgopal and another (supra), Court has again reiterated the guidelines regarding quashing of criminal proceedings in view of compromise. Following has been observed in paragraph 18-19:- "18. It is now a well crystalized axiom that plenary jurisdiction of this Court to impart complete justice under Article 142 cannot ipso facto be limited or restricted by ordinary statutory CRLP No. 5110 of 2026 6 provisions. It is also noteworthy that even in the absence of an express provision akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C. conferring powers on the Supreme Court to abrogate and set aside criminal proceedings, the jurisdiction exercisable under Article 142 of the Constitution embraces this Court with scopious powers to quash criminal proceedings also, so as to secure complete justice. In doing so, due regard must be given to the overarching objective of sentencing in the criminal justice system, which is grounded on the sub-lime philosophy of maintenance of peace of the collective and that the rationale of placing an individual behind bars is aimed at his reformation. 19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercise carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations." 10. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1 and 2 and 3, the learned counsel representing first informant-respondent-4, upon perusal of record and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as noted herein above and also the observations made by the Apex Court as mentioned above, this Court finds that there does not exists any legal impediment in accepting the compromise entered into by the parties inasmuch as, the dispute between the parties is private in nature and not a crime against state or society. In view of the compromise entered into by the parties, the chances of conviction of accused-petitioners is not only remote but also bleak. As such, continuation of proceedings would itself cause injustice to the parties. The trial would only entail loss of judicial time in a futile pursuit particularly when torrents of litigation drown the Courts with an unimaginable flood of dockets. 11. In view of the discussion made above, the present writ petition succeeds and is liable to be allowed. 12. It is, accordingly, allowed. CRLP No. 5110 of 2026 7 13. The FIR dated 31.01.2026 lodged by first informant/respondent 4 Harsh Garg and registered as Case Crime No. 73 of 2026, under sections 352 and 109(1) of BNS, Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Commissionerate Ghaziabad (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) is quashed. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. March 18, 2026 Arti CRLP No. 5110 of 2026 8 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad