LUCKNOW vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the F.I.R. dated

26.3.3035 registered as case crime no 118 of 2025 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 I.P.C., police station Tikait Nagar, district Barabanki.

3. This Court had passed the order dated 16.7.2025, which reads as under :-

1. The respondent- Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma is present today in person before this Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

3. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 02.07.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner assures the Court that he shall deposit the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- before the Senior Registrar of this Bench by 23.07.2025, positively. It is clarified that if the aforesaid amount is not deposited before the Senior Registrar of this Bench by 23.07.2025 the order dated 02.07.2025 shall stand automatically cancelled.

4. Both the parties agree to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for settlement of their dispute amicably. Accordingly, the matter is referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. Let the parties appear before the Mediation Centre on 24.07.2025. The Mediation Centre shall conclude the mediation proceedings within a period of four weeks and submit its report before this Court.

5. List this case after four weeks. 2 CRLP No. 5705 of 2025

6. Both the parties shall be present in person on the next date.

7. Interim order dated 02.07.2025 shall continue till the next date of listing subject to the aforesaid conditions.

4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the parties appeared before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court and the Mediators have submitted its report dated

26.8.2025, which is on record. The report of the Mediators dated 26.8.2025 indicates that the mediation was successfully completed.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 4 has also submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled through mediation.

6. The parties have settled all the disputes on the following terms and conditions :- A. As full and final settlement, the First Party shall pay a sum of 1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy-Five Thousand only) to the Second Party. B. The Demand Draft No. 404851 dated 14.08.2025 for 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and Demand Draft No. 404857 dated 25.08.2025 for ₹15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), together amounting to 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only), deposited herein, shall be handed over to the Second Party. C. The balance amount of ₹1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only), deposited before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, shall be released in favour of the Second Party, and the First Party shall have no objection in that regard. D. The parties have mutually agreed that they shall have no objection if the Hon'ble Court decides Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5705 of 2025 (Manoj Kumar Singh @ Manoj Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others) in terms of this Settlement Agreement. E. The parties have further agreed that apart from the case mentioned herein above, pertaining to this transaction if any other case(s), whether civil or criminal, is pending or filed in future between the parties or their agents, representatives, or successors in relation to the present dispute, the same shall be disposed of in terms of this Settlement Agreement. F. It is further agreed between the parties that henceforth no case shall be instituted by either of them against the other or against their respective family members, in the form of criminal or civil proceedings, in respect of any dispute arising out of or incidental to the present dispute. G. Both parties shall be strictly bound by the terms and conditions of this Settlement 3 CRLP No. 5705 of 2025 Agreement. In case of any default, the party committing the default shall be deemed to have played fraud upon the Court and shall be liable for contempt of Court.

7. Learned counsels for both the parties have given undertaking on behalf of the parties that the parties shall abide by all terms and conditions of the settlement agreement dated 26.8.2025.

8. The Apex Court in re: Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 343, has observed that even if the offence(s) in question is / are not compoundable within the scope of Section 320 Cr.P.C. even then considering the facts and circumstances of the case in question the Constitutional Court may allow the parties to compound such offence(s) on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the issue in question, particularly, the fact that the present petitioner and the private opposite party have settled the dispute through mediation and the report to this effect has been made part of the record, therefore, compelling the prosecution to prosecute the present petitioner would be a futile exercise and in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in re: B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; 2003 (4) SCC 675, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the F.I.R. dated

26.3.3035 registered as case crime no 118 of 2025 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 I.P.C., police station Tikait Nagar, district Barabanki.

3. This Court had passed the order dated 16.7.2025, which reads as under :-

1. The respondent- Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma is present today in person before this Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

3. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 02.07.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner assures the Court that he shall deposit the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- before the Senior Registrar of this Bench by 23.07.2025, positively. It is clarified that if the aforesaid amount is not deposited before the Senior Registrar of this Bench by 23.07.2025 the order dated 02.07.2025 shall stand automatically cancelled.

4. Both the parties agree to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for settlement of their dispute amicably. Accordingly, the matter is referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. Let the parties appear before the Mediation Centre on 24.07.2025. The Mediation Centre shall conclude the mediation proceedings within a period of four weeks and submit its report before this Court.

5. List this case after four weeks. 2 CRLP No. 5705 of 2025

6. Both the parties shall be present in person on the next date.

7. Interim order dated 02.07.2025 shall continue till the next date of listing subject to the aforesaid conditions.

4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the parties appeared before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court and the Mediators have submitted its report dated

26.8.2025, which is on record. The report of the Mediators dated 26.8.2025 indicates that the mediation was successfully completed.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 4 has also submitted that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled through mediation.

6. The parties have settled all the disputes on the following terms and conditions :- A. As full and final settlement, the First Party shall pay a sum of 1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy-Five Thousand only) to the Second Party. B. The Demand Draft No. 404851 dated 14.08.2025 for 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and Demand Draft No. 404857 dated 25.08.2025 for ₹15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), together amounting to 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only), deposited herein, shall be handed over to the Second Party. C. The balance amount of ₹1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only), deposited before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, shall be released in favour of the Second Party, and the First Party shall have no objection in that regard. D. The parties have mutually agreed that they shall have no objection if the Hon'ble Court decides Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5705 of 2025 (Manoj Kumar Singh @ Manoj Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others) in terms of this Settlement Agreement. E. The parties have further agreed that apart from the case mentioned herein above, pertaining to this transaction if any other case(s), whether civil or criminal, is pending or filed in future between the parties or their agents, representatives, or successors in relation to the present dispute, the same shall be disposed of in terms of this Settlement Agreement. F. It is further agreed between the parties that henceforth no case shall be instituted by either of them against the other or against their respective family members, in the form of criminal or civil proceedings, in respect of any dispute arising out of or incidental to the present dispute. G. Both parties shall be strictly bound by the terms and conditions of this Settlement 3 CRLP No. 5705 of 2025 Agreement. In case of any default, the party committing the default shall be deemed to have played fraud upon the Court and shall be liable for contempt of Court.

7. Learned counsels for both the parties have given undertaking on behalf of the parties that the parties shall abide by all terms and conditions of the settlement agreement dated 26.8.2025.

8. The Apex Court in re: Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 343, has observed that even if the offence(s) in question is / are not compoundable within the scope of Section 320 Cr.P.C. even then considering the facts and circumstances of the case in question the Constitutional Court may allow the parties to compound such offence(s) on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the issue in question, particularly, the fact that the present petitioner and the private opposite party have settled the dispute through mediation and the report to this effect has been made part of the record, therefore, compelling the prosecution to prosecute the present petitioner would be a futile exercise and in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in re: B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; 2003 (4) SCC 675, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak