( 2025:HHC:14095 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 325 of 2025 Decided on  : 14.05.2025 Surjeet Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh,  Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner     :  Mr. Kulwant Singh Gill, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1. Mr. Suresh   Saini,   Advocate,   for respondent No.2. Virender Singh, Judge (oral). Petitioner Surjeet Kumar has  filed the present petition,   under   Section   528   of   the   Bharatiya   Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita  (hereinafter referred to  as ‘BNSS’),  for quashing   of   FIR   No.90/2017,   dated   22.08.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., under Sections 324 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2025:HHC:14095 ) referred   to   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, Barsar, District Hamirpur, 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 petitioner and respondent No.2. 3. According to the petitioner, on the statement  of respondent No.2, the FIR, in question, has been registered against him. 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   petitioner,   during   the pendency of the aforesaid case, he has 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:14095 ) 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, had put the criminal machinery into motion, appeared before this Court and has stated that now, she has compromised the matter with the petitioner, out of her free will, consent and without any pressure. She has also deposed that after the compromise, she is residing happily with the petitioner in   the   matrimonial   home. She   has   also   admitted   her signature on Annexure P­2. She, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that she has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for. 4 ( 2025:HHC:14095 ) 10. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner, on oath. 11. Heard. 12. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.2, who is not stranger, but wife of the petitioner, by lodging the FIR, in question, who initially had levelled the allegations against the petitioner, however,   when   appeared   before   this   Court,   she   has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations. 13. Once,   the   person,   who   had   put   the   criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations, the chances of success of prosecution case against the petitioner 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   petitioner,   would   be   nothing,   but,   abuse   of process of law. 15. Moreover,   the   parties   are   not   strangers,   but, husband and wife. After the compromise, they both are 5 ( 2025:HHC:14095 ) living   together   happily,   in   the   matrimonial   home,   as husband and wife. 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 petitioner, as well as, respondent No.2 to live peacefully in the society. 16. On the other hand, if the petition is allowed, it will not only save the precious relationship of husband and wife between petitioner and respondent No.2, but, will also 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.90   of   2017,   dated   22.08.2017, registered with Police Station, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., under Sections 324, and 504 of the IPC, as well as, 6 ( 2025:HHC:14095 ) 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)