2025:HHC:19368 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.542 of 2025 Decided on : 23.06.2025 Usha Gupta …Petitioner Versus Deepti Gupta & Anr. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Sambhav Bhasin, Advocate. For the respondents : Respondent No.1 in person with Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate. Mr. Mohinder Zharaick and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General for respondent No.2. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.141/2018, dated 01.06.2018 (hereinafter referred to as 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:19368 the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station West Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 420, 464, 465, 467, 468 and 471 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, 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 petitioner, FIR in question was registered, due to some misunderstanding, on the basis of the statement, made by respondent No.1, who is the step- daughter of the petitioner and after registration of the FIR, police has submitted the challan before the learned trial Court. 4. It has been averred in the petition that during the pendency of the case, before the learned trial Court, respondent No.1 has entered into the compromise with the petitioner and the parties to the lis have amicably settled the dispute between them. In this regard, copy of the 3 2025:HHC:19368 Compromise Deed and copy of the affidavit, executed by respondent No.2, have also been annexed with the petition, as Annexures P-2 and P-3, respectively. 5. 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. 6. When, put to notice, respondent No.2-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.1, as well as, the manner, in which, the investigation has been conducted, by the police, in this case and thereafter, submitted the final report before the learned trial Court. 7. The petitioner has impleaded the complainant, as respondent No.1, in this case. 8. Today i.e. on 23.06.2025, respondent No.1- complainant, who had lodged the FIR, in question, appeared before the Court and deposed, on oath, that petitioner-Usha Gupta is her maternal aunt (Massi), who has solemnized the marriage with her father, after the 4 2025:HHC:19368 death of her mother. Thereafter, due to some misunderstanding, on the basis of her statement, the FIR, in question, has been registered, against the petitioner. She has also deposed that with the intervention of the respectables of the society, all the misunderstandings, between her and the petitioner, have now been cleared and all the inter se disputes, between them, have been settled, vide Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2. She has also executed the affidavit, in this regard, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure P-3. 8.1. Apart from this, respondent No.1 has also shown her voluntariness and willingness to enter into the compromise with the petitioner, by stating that the compromise has been effected out of her free will, consent and without any pressure. 8.2. In addition to this, respondent No.1 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. 9. Today, similar statement of the petitioner has also been recorded, on oath. 5 2025:HHC:19368 10. Heard. 11. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.1, by lodging the FIR, in question, against the petitioner, however, when, appeared before this Court, she has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations, as levelled, in this case. 12. Petitioner and respondent No.1 are not the strangers, but, real aunt and niece. The petitioner, who is maternal aunt of respondent No.1, after the death of her sister (mother of respondent No.1), had solemnized the marriage with the father of respondent No.1 and the dispute, between them, had arisen, due to the devolution of estate of Sh. Ghan Shyam Gupta and as per the allegations, when, the mutation, regarding the inheritance, was entered, the petitioner had not produced the testamentary documents of Sh. Ghan Shyam Gupta. 13. The dispute, between the petitioner and respondent No.1, is with regard to the estate of Sh. Ghan Shyam Gupta and the said dispute can be said to be private, between the parties. As such, when, the same has been settled, between the parties, then, there is no legal 6 2025:HHC:19368 hesitation for this Court to accept the petition, despite the fact that provisions of Sections 420, 464, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC have been added, in this case. 14. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations, by stating, on oath, that all the misunderstandings, between them, have now been cleared and the matter has been compromised, in such situation, the chances of success of prosecution case, against the petitioner, are not so bright. 15. When, the parties, who admittedly are known to each other, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide Compromise Deed Annexure P-2, then, permitting the proceedings to continue would be nothing, but, abuse of the 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 petitioner, as well as, respondent No.1 to live peacefully in the society. 7 2025:HHC:19368 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 Deed, Annexure P-2, entered into between the parties, as, the parties to the lis are not the strangers, but, real aunt and niece. 19. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.141/2018, dated 01.06.2018, registered with Police Station West Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 420, 464, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 20. The Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2, Affidavit, Annexure P-3, executed by respondent No.1, and the statements of the parties, shall form part of the judgment. 8 2025:HHC:19368 21. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge June 23, 2025 (Gaurav Thakur)