CRLP/3064/2024 of KULDEEP BAUDH AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF HOME CIVIL SECTT. LKO AND OTHERS on 18 November 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondent no. 4 is wife of petitioner no. 1 and on account of matrimonial discord, the impugned First Information Report was lodged. The impugned First Information Report was challenged before this Court and this Court vide order dated 22.05.2024 had refereed the matter to the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court in order to enable the parties to explore the possibility of settling the dispute through mediation.

3. Pursuant to the said order dated 22.05.2024, the parties appeared before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court and with the help of Mediators, they have amicably and genuinely settled all their disputes and differences and a settlement/agreement dated 22.10.2024 has been drawn between the parties, a copy of which has been annexed with the writ petition and shall form part of the record.

4. As per the settlement agreement, the parties have restored their relationship and are now living happily as husband and wife and have no grievance against each other.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has next submitted that in view of the compromise made between the parties, the impugned First Information Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dharmendra Kumar, Rakesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, Mohammad Alam, Surendra Singh Kuldeep Baudh And Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Civil Sectt. Lko And Others .....Respondent(s)

Report and consequent proceedings be quashed.

6. Learned AGA for the State could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

7. 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.

(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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. Accordingly, the impugned First Information Report No. 0171 of 2024, dated 05.04.2024, under Sections 376-D, 511, 354, 323, 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kamlapur, District Sitapur and consequent proceedings, if any, are quashed.

11. Consequently, the instant writ petition is allowed. November 18, 2025 kkv/ CRLP No. 3064 of 2024 2 (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench