1 ( 2025:HHC:27397 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.M.O. No. 748 of 2025 Reserved on: 07.08.2025 Decided on: 13.08.2025 Jasbir Kaur and others ...…. Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and another …...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioners: Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Lokinder Kuthleria, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Prashant Sen, Mr. Ajeet Sharma and Ms. Sunena Chandhari, Deputy Advocates General for respondent No.1-State. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of F.I.R. No. 186/2023, dated 26.12.2023, registered at Police Station, Amb, District Una for the commission of offences punishable under Section 498-A, 504 & 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. It has been asserted that the parties have 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?No 2 ( 2025:HHC:27397 ) compromised the matter. They have parted their ways through mutual divorce. A permanent alimony of ₹15,00,000/- was granted in favour of the respondent No. 2, which was duly paid. The complaint filed under Section 12 the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (D.V. Act) and Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) were withdrawn based on compromise effected between the parties. The F.I.R. is arising out of matrimonial discord between the parties. The continuation of proceedings will not serve any purpose. Hence, the present petition. 2. I have heard Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Lokinder Kutlheria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State. 3. Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the parties have entered into a compromise and the F.I.R should be quashed based on the compromise effected between the parties. The victim- informant is not ready to come to the Court, however, she had withdrawn the complaint filed under Section 12 of the D.V. Act and Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, 3 ( 2025:HHC:27397 ) he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the F.I.R. be quashed. 4. Mr. Lokinder Kutlheria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the parties have compromised the matter and the victim agreed to withdraw the proceedings under Section 498A of IPC. The very premise of the petition is defective. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 5. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 6. The photocopy of the statement made by Priya Rani/ respondent No.2 shows that the parties had agreed to part their ways, and permanent alimony of ₹15,00,000/- was agreed to be paid to her in four installments. One installment of ₹2,00,000/- was paid to her, and ₹13,00,000/- were to be paid on or before 01.09.2024. 7. This statement does not show that the informant/victim had agreed to withdraw the criminal proceedings initiated by her. There is no proof of the fact that 4 ( 2025:HHC:27397 ) the maintenance amount of ₹13,00,000/-, as agreed to be paid on or before 01.09.2024, was also paid to the wife. The copy of the order passed by the learned Family Court, Una, has also not been filed to show that the marriage was dissolved between the parties. Therefore, the material on record does not show that the compromise was effected between the parties. 8. A heavy reliance was placed on the fact that the petitions filed under Section 12 of the D.V. Act and Section 125 of Cr. P.C. were withdrawn by the wife. However, the withdrawal of those petitions will not help the petitioners because they were required to prove that the victim had agreed to withdraw the proceedings under Section 498A of the IPC. They were also required to show that the compromise stated to have been effected, as per the statement dated 23.02.2024, was taken to its logical conclusion. The relationship between the parties was dissolved by a decree of mutual divorce as agreed, 'stridhan' and maintenance were paid to her. In the absence of proof of the compromise and the fact that the wife is not willing to come to the court to express her desire to compromise the matter, it is impermissible to quash the F.I.R. based on the compromise. 5 ( 2025:HHC:27397 ) 9. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 10. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 13 August 2025. (yogesh)