1 . ( 2025:HHC:30709 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.463 of 2025 Date of Decision: 08.09.2025 Budhi Parkash @ Ramesh Chand & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & another …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioners : Petitioners in person, with Mr. Aakash Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma and Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.1/State Respondent No.2, in person with Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sumit Sharma & Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocates. 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 No.96 of 2024, dated 29.05.2024, (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Shimla West, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 451, 147, 149, 323 and 506 of the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 . ( 2025:HHC:30709 ) 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-II, Shimla, District Shimla, 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 daughter of petitioner No.1, namely Pooja was solemnized with son of respondent No.2. Thereafter, some matrimonial dispute has arisen between daughter of petitioner No.1 and and son of respondent No.2. Subsequently, respondent No.2 has lodged the FIR, in question, against the petitioners. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that after registration of FIR, the police has investigated the matter and the final report, under Section 173(2) of CrPC, has been submitted, which is pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 5. It is the further case of the petitioners that thereafter, a petition, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, was filed, before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., for dissolution of the marriage of daughter of 3 . ( 2025:HHC:30709 ) petitioner No.1 and son of respondent No.2, by decree of divorce by way of mutual consent. 6. According to the petitioners, thereafter, the matter was also referred to Mediation, by this Court, now the matter has been settled between both the parties. The settlement before the learned Mediator is Ext.PX. 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, respondent No.2-complainant has made a statement, on oath, that the daughter of petitioner No.1, namely Pooja had solemnized marriage with son of respondent No.2. After their marriage, due to non-compatibility of temperament, it was not possible for both to live in the matrimonial home and due to all these facts, respondent No.2, lodged the FIR, in question, against the petitioners. 4 . ( 2025:HHC:30709 ) 10. As per further deposition of respondent No.2, daughter of petitioner No.1 and son of respondent No.2 had filed the petition, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of their marriage, by way of decree of divorce, before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. 11. Respondent No.2 has further deposed that it has been agreed between the parties that all the disputes/cases, initiated before the various Courts will be withdrawn, especially the cases, which have been instituted by daughter of petitioner No.1, namely Pooja and the matter has been compromised, as such, she does not want to proceed further with the FIR, in question. 12. Apart from this, respondent No.2 has also shown her voluntariness and willingness to enter into the compromise with the petitioners, by stating that she has entered into the compromise with the petitioners voluntarily and without any influence from any person. 13. In addition to this, respondent No.2 has made no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR, in question, as well as, the resultant proceedings, thereto, are quashed. 5 . ( 2025:HHC:30709 ) 14. Today i.e. on 08.09.2025, similar joint statement of the petitioners has also been recorded, on oath. 15. Heard. 16. 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, appeared before this Court, she has exonerated the petitioners from the allegations, as levelled, in this case. 17. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioners from the allegations, by stating, on oath, that the matter has been compromised between them, in such situation, the chances of success of prosecution case, against the petitioners, are not so bright. 18. When, the parties admittedly have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide Ext.PX, then, permitting the proceedings to continue, would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law. 19. 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. 6 . ( 2025:HHC:30709 ) 20. 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. 21. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.96 of 2024, dated 29.05.2024, registered with Police Station, Shimla East, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 451, 147, 149, 323 and 506 of the IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, against the petitioners, are ordered to be quashed. 22. The compromise, Ext.PX, and the statements of the parties, recorded today in the Court, shall form part of the judgment and parties are bound by the said document. 23. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (Virender Singh) Judge September 08, 2025 (subhash)