2025:HHC:28395 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 640 of 2025 Decided on  : 21.08.2025 Raj Kumar Saini …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh,  Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner  : Petitioner in person with Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents  : Mr. Tejsavi   Sharma   &   Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General   with   Ms. Ranjna   Patial, Deputy   Advocate   General,   for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2, in person with Mr. Shivang Chandel, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral). Petitioner­Raj Kumar Saini has filed the present petition,   under   Section   528   of   the   Bharatiya   Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita  (hereinafter referred to  as ‘BNSS’),  for quashing   of   FIR   No.73/2024,   dated   17.05.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:28395 with   Police   Station,   Kala   Amb,   District   Sirmaur,   H.P., under Sections 354A(1)(i), 354A(1)(ii) & 354­D of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, if any. 2. The relief of quashing has been sought, on the basis of the compromise, which has taken place between the petitioner and respondent No.2. 3. According to the petitioner, on the statement  of respondent No.2, the FIR, in question, has been registered against him. After registration of the FIR, the police has started the investigation. 4. According   to   the   petitioner,   during   the pendency   of   the   investigation,   the   matter   has   been compromised   between   him   and   respondent   No.2. The terms   and   conditions   of   the   compromise   have   been reduced into writing, vide compromise deed Annexure P­2. 5. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been   made   that   the   FIR,   in   question,   as   well   as, proceedings   resultant   thereto,   if   any,   be   quashed,   by allowing the petition. 3 2025:HHC:28395 6. When put to notice, respondent No.1­State has filed   the   status   report,   mentioning   therein,   that complainant/respondent   No.2,   has   made   a   complaint against   the   petitioner,   disclosing   therein,   that   the petitioner being plant head, is insisting her time and again to   do   wrong   act  with   him   and   also   asked   her   to   meet outside. The   complainant   has   also   alleged   in   the complaint that the petitioner had caught hold of her hand, when she was alone and he used to harass her. Thereafter, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.2, and the police is investigating the matter. 7. Respondent No.2, who, at one point of time, had put the criminal machinery into motion, appeared before this   Court   and   has   deposed   that   due   to   some misunderstanding, she had lodged the FIR, in question. She has also deposed that now, she has compromised the matter with the petitioner, out of her free will, consent and without any pressure. She has also admitted her signature on Annexure P­2. She, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that she has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for. 4 2025:HHC:28395 8. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner, on oath. 9. Heard. 10. 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 petitioner, however, when appeared before this Court, she has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations. 11. Once,   the   person,   who   had   put   the   criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations, the chances of success of prosecution case against the petitioner are not so bright. 12. When   the   parties,   have   buried   all   their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise Annexure P­2, then, permitting the proceedings to continue against   the   petitioner,   would   be   nothing,   but,   abuse   of process of law. 13. 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 5 2025:HHC:28395 petitioners, as well as, respondent No.2 to live peacefully in the society. 14. Even otherwise, acceptance of the compromise, by this Court, will save the precious judicial time of the Court, in which, the final report would be filed and that Court would be in a position to devote such time for the decision of some other serious matters, pending before it. 15. Moreover,   this   Court   is   satisfied   with   the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P­2, entered into between the parties. 16. Considering   all   these   facts,   the   petition   is allowed   and   FIR   No.73   of   2024,   dated   17.05.2024, registered with Police Station, Kala Amb, District Sirmaur, H.P., under Sections 354A(1)(i), 354A(1)(ii) and 354­D of the   IPC,  as   well   as,   the   proceedings   resultant   thereto, pending before the learned trial Court,  are ordered to be quashed. 17. The compromise deed, Annexure P­2, and the statements of the parties, recorded today, in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 6 2025:HHC:28395 18. Pending   miscellaneous   applications,   if   any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge August 21, 2025(ps)