IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 751 of 2025 Decided on : 11.08.2025 Kapil Dev …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2. Respondent No. 3 in person with Mr. Atul Thakur, Advocate. 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 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 No. 15 of 2024, dated 10.04.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station Kupvi, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 354-D, and 509 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 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chopal, District 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, due to some misunderstanding, respondent No. 3 has lodged the FIR, in question, against him. 4. After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the final report, which is now pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 5. According to the petitioner, the dispute, between the parties, has been sorted amicably. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, vide compromise deed Annexure P-3. 3 6. 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. 7. When put to notice, respondents-State have filed the status report, disclosing therein that on 10th April, 2024, complainant-respondent No. 3 moved a complaint, against the accused-petitioner, mentioning therein that he use to call her (complainant-respondent No. 3) frequently and harass her by delivering objectionable notions and using filthy language. As such, a request was made to take appropriate action, upon which, FIR in question was registered and criminal machinery swung into motion. During investigation, the provisions of Section 509 IPC were found to be not attracted in this case, as such, Section 509 IPC was deleted in this case. 8. Today, respondent No.2-complainant, appeared before the Court and deposed, on oath, that due to some misunderstanding, she has lodged the FIR, in question. According to her, she has compromised the matter with the petitioner, vide Compromise Deed Annexure P-3. She has 4 also deposed that in view of the compromise, she has no objection, if the present petition is allowed, as prayed for. 9. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner, on oath. 10. Heard. 11. The person, who has put the criminal machinery into motion, is respondent No.2. Respondent No.2, while appearing, before this Court, has categorically deposed that the matter has been compromised, between the parties. 12. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society. When, the petitioner 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. 5 14. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 15/2024, dated 10.04.2024, registered with Police Station Kupvi, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 354-D, and 509 of the IPC, as well as, the proceedings, resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 15. The compromise deed, Annexure P-3, and the statements of the parties, shall form part of the judgment. 16. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge August 11, 2025 (Pramod Kumar)