1 2025:HHC:16984 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 445 of 2025 Decided on : 30.5.2025 Mehar Chand …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & anr. …Respondents ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Mohar Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents :Mr. H.S. Rawat, Addl. A.G., for respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 in person with Mr. Anil Kapoor, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) The petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.) for quashing of FIR No. 50 of 2020, dated 18.5.2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 308, 309, 336, 342, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code 2 2025:HHC:16984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) with Police Station, Jhakri, District Shimla, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, stated to be pending before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’). 2. Relief, as claimed for, has been sought on the ground that on account of trivial matter, a quarrel had taken place between the petitioner, and respondent No. 2, who are husband-wife in relation, upon which, FIR in question has been lodged against the petitioner- husband. After registration of the FIR, Police has conducted investigation in the matter and filed charge sheet against the petitioner-husband, which is stated to be pending in the learned trial Court. 3. It is also the case of the parties that now, the matter has been compromised, in pursuance of compromise, Annexure P-2, as the parties are living together happily. 3 2025:HHC:16984 4. On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, has been made. 5. When put to notice, respondent-State has filed status report, disclosing therein the factual position, about the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and criminal machinery swung into motion. 6. It is the further case of respondent- State that after completion of investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. has been filed, which is pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 7. The person, who had put criminal machinery into motion, by making statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C., before the Police, i.e. respondent No. 2-wife has appeared in Court today and has made a statement, on oath, about the manner, in which, she has lodged the FIR in question and factum of the compromise, which has been effected, between the 4 2025:HHC:16984 parties, as they are husband-wife and want to live together. 8. Lastly, respondent No. 2(wife), in unequivocal terms, has deposed that she does not want to proceed further with the matter. 9. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner-husband, on oath. 10. Heard. 11. Complainant/respondent No. 2 (wife) has categorically stated, in her statement, on oath, that the compromise has been effected between the parties, and now, she is living happily with the petitioner- husband, in her matrimonial home. 12. In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, which bears the signatures of petitioner-husband, and respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 does not want to proceed further with the case and has no objection, in case, the FIR in question, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial 5 2025:HHC:16984 Court, are quashed and the present petition is allowed. 13. Moreover, when, the parties have settled the dispute with regard to FIR in question, then the compromise, which has been entered into between the parties, annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2, should be honoured by this Court, as no useful purpose would be served, by keeping the proceedings alive. 14. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace in the society and when, the parties to the lis, i.e. petitioner, and respondent No. 2 are husband- wife and have buried all their interse disputes and compromised the matter, then, the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of FIR in question, lodged by respondent No. 2, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law. 15. Acceptance of the compromise would also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, as, the learned trial Court would be in a position to devote 6 2025:HHC:16984 such time, for deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it. 16. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR in question, as well as, proceedings consequent thereto, pending adjudication before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 17. The statements of the parties and the compromise, Annexure P-2, be read as part of the judgment. 18. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge May 30, 2025 Kalpana