1  ( 2025:HHC:18951 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.415 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.06.2025 Yugansh Bhola and Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Jitesh Pandey and Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General for respondent No.1/State Mr. Pranshul Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR.101 of 2023, dated 02.12.2023, (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Arki, District Solan, H.P., under Section 498A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2  ( 2025:HHC:18951 ) Kasuali, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). 2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the basis of the compromise, effected between the parties. 3. According to the petitioners, the marriage of petitioner No.1 was solemnized with respondent No.2, as per Hindu rites and rituals, on 07.02.2022. Thereafter, some matrimonial dispute has arisen between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, and subsequently, respondent No.2 had lodged the FIR, in question, against the petitioners. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that after registration of FIR, the police had investigated the matter and the final report, under Section 173(2) of CrPC, was submitted, which is pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 5. It is the further case of the petitioners that thereafter, joint petition, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, was filed, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Principal Judge, Family Court, Solan, camp at Arki, for dissolution of the marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, in which statements of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, on the first motion have already been 3  ( 2025:HHC:18951 ) recorded and now the case is stated to be fixed for recording the statements, on second motion. 6. 6. According to the petitioners, thereafter, the matter has been compromised between the parties, vide compromise/settlement deed, Annexure P-2. 7. On the basis of the said compromise, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, as prayed for, by quashing the FIR, in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court. 8. When, put to notice, respondent No.1-State 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. Today, Mr. Arun Kumar Kashyap, father of respondent No.2-Shruti Kashyap, has put appearance before this Court and made a statement, being Special Power of Attorney holder of his daughter, that his daughter-Shruti Kashyap, has executed a Special Power of Attorney, in his favour, vide SPA Ext.PA, and he has been authorized to appear and depose, on her behalf. 4  ( 2025:HHC:18951 ) 9.1. Mr. Arun Kumar Kashyap, has further deposed that the marriage of his daughter and petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 07.02.2022. However, after the marriage, due to non-compatibility of temperament, it was not possible for her to live in the matrimonial home with her husband (petitioner No.1) and due to all these facts, she had lodged the FIR, in question, against the petitioners. 9.2. As per further deposition of SPA of respondent No.2, thereafter, a joint petition, under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been filed by respondent No.2 and her husband(petitioner No-1) for dissolution of their marriage, in which, statements of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 on the first motion have already been recorded and the case has now been fixed for recording the statements on second motion. 9.3. SPA of respondent No.2 has further deposed that the matter has been compromised between respondent No.2 (his daughter) and the petitioners and as such, his daughter does not want to proceed further with the FIR, in question. 9.4. Apart from this, SPA of respondent No.2 has also shown the voluntariness and willingness of his daughter to enter into the compromise with the petitioners, by stating that his daughter has entered into the compromise with the 5  ( 2025:HHC:18951 ) petitioners voluntarily and without any influence from any person. 9.5. In addition to this, SPA of respondent No.2 has also deposed that respondent No.2 has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR, in question, as well as, the resultant proceedings, thereto, are quashed. 10. Since, petitioner No.1 is residing at Japan and is not in a position to depose in the Court, as such, he has executed a Special Power of Attorney in favour of his real brother, Mehul Bhola (petitioner No.3), to appear, as well as, to make a statement, on oath, on his behalf before this Court. 10.1. Similar type of statement has also been made by petitioner No.3 on his behalf, as well as, on his brother’s (petitioner No.1) behalf, on oath. 11. Petitioner No.2 has made a statement through video conferencing and deposed on the same lines as deposed by SPA of respondent No.2. 12. Heard. 13. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.2, by lodging the FIR, in question, against the petitioners, however, when, her father, being her Special Power of Attorney holder, appeared before this Court, 6  ( 2025:HHC:18951 ) has exonerated the petitioners from the allegations, as levelled, in this case. 14. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioners from the allegations, by compromising the matter, then, the chances of success of prosecution case, against the petitioners, are not so bright. 15. When, the parties admittedly have decided to part their ways and buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide settlement deed/compromise Annexure P-2, then, permitting the proceedings to continue would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law. 16. 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. 17. 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. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness 7  ( 2025:HHC:18951 ) of the settlement deed/compromise Annexure P-2, entered into between the parties. 18. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.101 of 2023, dated 02.12.2023, registered with Police Station Arki, District Solan, H.P., under Section 498A, 34 of the IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, against the petitioners, are ordered to be quashed. 19. The settlement deed/compromise, Annexure P-2, and the statements of the parties, recorded in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 20. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (Virender Singh) Judge June 18, 2025 (subhash)