1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 524 of 2025 Decided on : 2.7.2025 Arpan Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P.& anr. …Respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents :Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Addl. A.G. for respondent No.1, assisted by ASI Yashpal Singh, I.O., WPS Mandi, H.P. Mr. Sarvedaman Rathore, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) seeking 2 quashing of FIR No. 4 of 2018, dated 29.1.2018, registered under Sections 498-A, 506, 509 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) with Women Police Station, Mandi, H.P. as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in view of the compromise, having been effected, between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. 2. According to the petitioner, FIR in question was registered against him at the instance of respondent No. 2, due to matrimonial dispute, having been arisen between petitioner and respondent No. 2. 3. After registration of the FIR, the criminal machinery swung into motion. After completion of the investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. was submitted in the trial Court. 4. During the pendency of the case, before learned trial Court, the parties have settled the matter. As per settlement, marriage between petitioner and 3 respondent No. 2 has already been dissolved, vide judgment and decree, dated 17.10.2022, by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kullu, H.P. 5. On the basis of above, a prayer has been made to allow the present petition. 6. When put to notice, respondent No. 1 has filed the status report, disclosing therein the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and the Police has investigated the matter and submitted report under Section 173(2) Cr. P.C., before the learned trial Court. 7. According to the status report, filed by the respondent-State, the case is pending before the learned trial Court and the same is now fixed for hearing on 4.7.2025. 8. Today, the person, who, at one point of time, had levelled the allegations, against the petitioner, i.e. respondent No. 2, appeared and stated, on oath, that she was married to petitioner and thereafter, dispute had arisen between them, out of matrimonial discord. 4 Thereafter, according to her, she had lodged FIR against the petitioner, in which, police has conducted the investigation and submitted the report under Section 173(2) of the Cr. P.C., which is pending before the learned trial Court. 9. According to respondent No. 2, she and petitioner have parted their ways, by dissolving their marriage. She has deposed that she has no claim whatsoever, with regard to past, present and future maintenance, towards the petitioner, and all the disputes between her and the petitioner, have now been resolved. 10. On the basis of compromise, Annexure P-3, she has categorically stated that she has no objection, in case the FIR, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 11. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner, in which, he has also reiterated that 5 he is governed by the terms and conditions of the compromise, Annexure P-3. 12. Heard. 13. Parties to the present lis, i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 2 have settled the inter se disputes having been arisen between them, by dissolving their marriage. The compromise is Annexure P-3, according to which the parties have settled all their disputes and bound themselves by the same. As such, continuation of proceedings, before the learned trial Court is nothing, but, the abuse of process of law. 14. When the aggrieved wife, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, by lodging the FIR, against her husband, i.e. petitioner, has settled the matter him, that too, by dissolving the marriage with him, then, chances of success of prosecution case, in this case, are not so bright. 15. Acceptance of the compromise will also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, as the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote 6 such time, for deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it. 16. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 4 of 2018, dated 29.1.2018, registered under Sections 498-A and 506 of the IPC, with Police Station, Women Police Station, Mandi, H.P., and the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 17. The statements, so recorded, before this Court, as well as, compromise Annexure P-3, shall form part of the judgment. 18. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge July 2, 2025 Kalpana