1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 596 of 2025 Decided on : 21.7.2025 Ramesh Chand & ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & ors. …Respondents ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Petitioners : Petitioners in person with Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents :Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Addl. A.G., for respondent No. 1. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in person with Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) The petitioners have 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. 135 of 2021, dated 17.10.2021, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 451, 354, 354-B, 2 323, 147, 149, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) with Police Station, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, stated to be pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’). 2. As per the stand taken by the parties, they are not the strangers, but close relatives. However, on 17.10.2021, a scuffle had taken place. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 Shanti Devi had lodged FIR in question, upon which, the Police has investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet, against the petitioners, which is pending in the Court of 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 related to each other and want to maintain their cordial relations, in future. 3 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, respondents-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 respondents- 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, 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 parties, in order to maintain cordial relations 4 between her, respondent No. 3, and the petitioners, as they are relatives. 8. Lastly, respondent No. 2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that she does not want to proceed further with the matter. 9. Respondent No. 3 has also deposed on the similar lines. 9. Similar type of joint statements have also been made by the petitioners, on oath. 10. Heard. 11. Complainant/respondent No. 2 has categorically stated, in her statement, on oath, that the compromise has been effected between the parties, in order to maintain their cordial relations, in future. 12. In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, which bears the signatures of petitioners, and respondent Nos. 2 and 3, 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 5 learned trial 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. petitioners, and respondent Nos. 2 and 3, have buried all their 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. Acceptance of the compromise will also encourage the parties to live in the society with harmony and peace and to maintain their cordial 6 relations, as they are residents of same village and related to each other. 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 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 July 21, 2025 Kalpana