IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 649 of 2025 Decided on : 31.07.2025 Raveena & Anr. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Petitioners in person with Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1/State. Respondent No. 2 in person with Mr. Gambhir Singh Chauhan, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge Petitioners have approached this Court, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No. 13/2020 dated 21.01.2020 under Sections 324, 323 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as “FIR in question”) registered with Police Station Amb, District Una, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Amb, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”), on the basis of the compromise which is stated to have taken place between the petitioners and respondent No. 2. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the FIR in question was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, in which, she had alleged that on 21.01.2020, when she went to give drinking water to her buffaloes, at that time she was beaten by the petitioners near the well, due to which, she received grievous injuries on her hand and ear and petitioners also threatened her. 3. On the basis of above facts, police registered the FIR in question and criminal machinery swung into motion. 3 4. As stated above, after completion of investigation police filed charge sheet, which is pending before the trial Court. 5. As per the case of the petitioners, during the pendency of the proceedings, before the learned trial Court, matter has been settled between the parties, as, they are from the same family and also residents of same village. The terms and conditions of the compromise were reduced into writing and the same has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. On the basis of Annexure P-2, a prayer has been made to allow the petition by quashing the FIR in question. 6. When put to notice, respondent No. 1/State has filed the status report, disclosing therein, the manner, in which the FIR in question has been registered and how the police had conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the petitioners, which is pending before the learned trial Court. 7. Respondent No. 2, who at one point of time, had levelled the allegations against the petitioners, when appeared before this Court today, has made a statement, 4 exonerating the petitioners from the allegations, which have been levelled against them, affirming that the FIR in question was lodged by her on account of a trivial matter and now, matter has been compromised between them, as petitioners and respondent No. 2 are of the same family and they want to live peacefully in the society. The said compromise has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. Respondent No. 2 has also deposed that she has no objection, if the petition is allowed, in view of the compromise and the FIR in question is quashed. 8. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioners jointly. 9. Heard. 10. In view of the statements of the parties, especially the statement of respondent No. 2, who at one point of time, had lodged the FIR in question, but, when appeared in the witness box has exonerated them, by stating that the matter has been compromised between them, as they are of the same family and they want to live peacefully in the society and in order to maintain their future cordial relations. In such situation, this Court is 5 fully satisfied with regard to the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P-2. 11. As per the stand taken by the parties i.e. petitioners, as well as, respondent No. 2, they are not strangers but are of the same family and are residents of same village. 12. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society. When, the petitioners and respondent No.2 have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, then, permitting the proceedings to continue, before the learned trial Court, would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law. 13. 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. 14. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 13/2020, dated 21.01.2020 registered with Police Station Amb, District Una, H.P., under Sections 324, 323, 34 of the IPC, as well as, the 6 proceedings, resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 15. The compromise deed, Annexure P-2, and the statements of the parties, recorded today, shall form part of the judgment. 16. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge July 31, 2025 (Pramod)