SHAHKAB AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
          CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11490 of 2026

Shahkab And 5 Others
                                                     .....Petitioner(s)
                               Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                     .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jaideep Pandey, Lal Mani Singh,
                            Saumya Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Amzad Rza, Ehtesham Khan, G.A.

Court No. - 47
                 HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J.
                 HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the
State, Shri Amzad Raza, learned counsel for the respondent no.4
and perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
respondent no.4 is the wife of petitioner no.1, while other
petitioners are his family members and on account of matrimonial
discord between husband and wife, the impugned FIR was lodged
against the petitioners, thereafter, the impugned FIR was
challenged before this Court by filing the instant writ petition and
this Court, vide order dated 18.06.2026, had referred the matter to
the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court in order to
enable the parties to explore the possibility of resolving the dispute
through mediation.

3. Pursuant to the said order dated 18.06.2026, the parties had
appeared before the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this
Court and with the help of the Mediators, the parties have amicably
and genuinely settled their all disputes and differences and they
have arrived at a settlement agreement dated 13.08.2026, a copy
of which has been annexed with the instant writ petition and shall
form part of the record.

4. Pursuant to the said settlement agreement dated 13.08.2026,
the parties have agreed to live separately and a sum of Rs.15 Lakh
                                                     CRLP No. 11490 of 2026
                                2


was agreed to be paid by the petitioner no.1 to the respondent no.4
in lieu of all her claims and liabilities.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has next submitted that
pursuant to the said settlement agreement dated 13.08.2026, a
sum of Rs.15 Lakh has already been received by respondent no.4
as evident from the settlement agreement itself and has also been
acknowledged by learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has next submitted that in
view of the said settlement agreement drawn between the parties
and in order to maintain harmonious and cordial relations between
them, the impugned FIR be quashed.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has also appeared and
has    acknowledged       the    said   settlement   agreement      dated
13.08.2026 made between the parties and has further submitted,
on instructions, that the respondent no.4 has no objection, if the
impugned FIR is quashed.

8. Learned AGA could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

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). 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.
                                                                                       CRLP No. 11490 of 2026
                                                                 3


                                    (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
                                    present case.

                                    12. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of impugned FIR dated
                                    09.05.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No. 0225 of 2026, under
                                    Sections 64(1), 85, 115(2), 352, 351(3) of B.N.S., 2023, Police
                                    Station Garh Mukteshwar, District Hapur, is quashed.

                                    13. The instant criminal miscellaneous writ petition is accordingly
                                    allowed.
                                    September 21, 2026
                                    Nadim

                                                                (Devendra Singh-I,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
NADIM ALAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad