( 2025:HHC:14094 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 300 of 2025 Decided on  : 14.05.2025 Vinod Singh & Another …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh,  Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners  :   Mr. Goldy Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents  : Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1. Ms. Vandana Kumari, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Virender Singh, Judge (oral). Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter   referred   to  as   ‘BNSS’),  for   quashing   of   FIR No.153/2020, dated 18.08.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the   FIR,   in   question),   registered   with   Police   Station, Kangra, H.P., under Sections 323, 324 and 504, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2025:HHC:14094 ) as the ‘IPC’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). 2. The relief of quashing has been sought, on the basis of the compromise, which has taken place between the petitioners and respondent No.2. 3. According to the petitioners, on the statement of   respondent   No.2,   the   FIR,   in   question,   has   been registered against them. 4. After   registration   of   the   FIR,   the   police   has conducted the investigation and submitted the final report, which is now pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. 5. According   to   the   petitioners,   during   the pendency of the aforesaid case, with the intervention of the respectables   of   the   society,   they   have   compromised   the matter with respondent No.2. 6. The  terms and  conditions  of  the compromise have   been   reduced   into   writing,   vide   compromise   deed, Annexure P­2. 3 ( 2025:HHC:14094 ) 7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been   made   that   the   FIR,   in   question,   as   well   as, proceedings, resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial   Court,   may   kindly   be   quashed   and   set   aside,   by allowing the petition. 8. When put to notice, respondent No.1­State has filed   the   status   report,   mentioning   therein   the circumstances, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.2, as well as, the   manner,   in   which,   the   investigation   has   been conducted, by the police, in this case. 9. Respondent No.2, who, at one point of time, has put the criminal machinery into motion, appeared before this Court and has stated that now, he has compromised the matter with the petitioners, out of his free will, consent and   without   any   pressure. He   has   also   admitted   his signature on Annexure P­2. He, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for. 10. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioners, on oath. 4 ( 2025:HHC:14094 ) 11. Heard. 12. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.2, by lodging the FIR, in question, who initially had levelled the allegations against the petitioners, however, when appeared before this Court, he has exonerated the petitioners from the allegations. 13. Once,   the   person,   who   had   put   the   criminal machinery   into   motion,  has  exonerated   the   petitioners from the allegations, the chances of success of prosecution case against the petitioners are not so bright. 14. When   the   parties,   have   buried   all   their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise Annexure P­2, then, permitting the proceedings to continue against the petitioners, would be nothing, but, abuse of process of law. 15. The   primary   purpose   of   law   is   to   maintain peace   and   harmony   in   the   society. Acceptance   of   the petition,   would   also   give   another   opportunity   to   the petitioners, as well as, respondent No.2 to live peacefully in the society. 5 ( 2025:HHC:14094 ) 16. Even otherwise, acceptance of the compromise, by this Court, will save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, which, the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote for the decision of some other serious matters, pending before it. 17. Moreover,   this   Court   is   satisfied   with   the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P­2, entered into between the parties. 18. Considering   all   these   facts,   the   petition   is allowed   and   FIR   No.153   of   2020,   dated   18.08.2020, registered with Police Station, Kangra, H.P., under Sections 323, 324 and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 19. The compromise deed, Annexure P­2, and the statements of the parties, recorded in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 20. Pending   miscellaneous   applications,   if   any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge May 14, 2025(ps)