2025:HHC:20830 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.:536 of 2025 Decided on : 01.07.2025 Gaurav Goyal & Another …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Petitioners in person with Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Ranjna Patiala, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1. Respondents No.2 and 3 in person with Mr. Hitesh Kumar, Advocate. 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.65/2023, dated 09.04.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 448, 504, 506, 201 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:20830 and 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 Judicial Magistrate First Class-V, 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, which has taken place between the petitioners and respondents No.2 and 3. 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 report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, which is now pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. 5. According to the petitioners, during the pendency of the aforesaid case, in order to maintain their future cordial relations and to live peacefully in the society, they have compromised the matter with respondents No.2 and 3. 3 2025:HHC:20830 6. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, vide compromise deed, Annexure P-2. 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, qua the petitioners, by allowing the petition. 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. Respondent No.2, who, at one point of time, had put the criminal machinery into motion, appeared before this Court and has stated that he, as well as, respondent No.3 and the petitioners are neighbourers, as such, in order to maintain their future cordial relations and in order to live peacefully in the society, the matter has been settled between them, vide compromise Annexure 4 2025:HHC:20830 P-2. He, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for. 10. Respondent No.2 has further deposed that petitioner Isha Chandel had also lodged FIR No.61 of 2023, dated 01.04.2023, under Section 506, 323 and Section 34 of the IPC, against him and his wife, with Police Station, Dhalli, which is also pending before the learned trial Court. 11. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioners, as well as, respondent No.3, on oath. 12. Heard. 13. 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, has exonerated the petitioners from the allegations. 14. 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. 15. When the parties, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise 5 2025:HHC:20830 Annexure P-2, then, permitting the proceedings to continue against the petitioners, would be nothing, but, abuse of 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, respondents No.2 and 3 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. 18. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P-2, entered into between the parties. 19. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.65 of 2023, dated 09.04.2023, registered with Police Station, Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 448, 504, 506, 201, and 34 of the IPC, as 6 2025:HHC:20830 well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 20. The compromise deed, Annexure P-2, and the statements of the parties, recorded in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 21. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge July 01, 2025(ps)