2025:HHC:33874 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. : 828 of 2025 Decided on :  06.10.2025 Prem Chand …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh,  Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner  : Petitioner in person with Ms. Shikha Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents  : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Respondent   No.3,   in   person   with Ms. Heena Chauhan, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral). Petitioner­Prem   Chand   has  filed   the   present petition,   under   Section   528   of   the   Bharatiya   Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita  (hereinafter referred to  as ‘BNSS’),  for quashing   of   FIR   No.20/2021,   dated   04.06.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Kunihar, District Solan, H.P., under 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:33874 Section 354 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,   Arki,   District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). 2. The relief of quashing has been sought, on the basis of the compromise, which has taken place between the petitioner and respondent No.3. 3. According to the petitioner, on the statement  of respondent No.3, the FIR, in question, has been registered against him. 4. After   registration   of   the   FIR,   the   police   has conducted the investigation and submitted the final report in the learned trial Court. When the matter was pending before the learned trial Court, the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of the FIR, in question. 5. According   to   the   petitioner,   during   the pendency of the present petition, with the intervention of the respectables of the society and in order to maintain their   future   cordial   relations,   he   has   compromised   the matter with respondent No.3. 3 2025:HHC:33874 6. The  terms and  conditions  of  the compromise have   been   reduced   into   writing,   vide   compromise   deed Annexure P­2. 7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been   made   that   the   FIR,   in   question,   as   well   as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial   Court,   may   kindly   be   quashed   and   set   aside,   by allowing the petition. 8. When put to notice, respondents No.1 and 2­ State have filed the status report, mentioning therein, that she,   after   the   death   of   her   mother,   her   father   had performed   second   marriage. Since,   they   are   not maintaining her properly, as such, she had initially resided with   her   maternal   uncle   (Mama),   for   about   four   years. Thereafter, for the last about six months, she had went to the house of her maternal aunt (Mausi) and started living there. On 03.06.2021, she had gone to her native village Sai to see her ailing uncle (Tayaji) with her maternal uncle (Mausa),   and   while   returning   back,   her   maternal   uncle (Mausa), had outraged her modesty. As such, she had lodged the FIR, in question. 4 2025:HHC:33874 9. Respondent No.3, 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. 10. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner, on oath. 11. Heard. 12. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.3, 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. 13. Once,   the   person,   who   had   put   the   criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioner from 5 2025:HHC:33874 the allegations, the chances of success of prosecution case against the petitioner are not so bright. 14. 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. 15. 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 petitioners, as well as, respondent No.3 to live peacefully in the society. 16. 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. 17. Moreover,   this   Court   is   satisfied   with   the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P­2, entered into between the parties. 6 2025:HHC:33874 18. Considering   all   these   facts,   the   petition   is allowed   and   FIR   No.20   of   2021,   dated   04.06.2021, registered   with   Police   Station,   Kunihar,   District   Solan, H.P.,   under   Section   354   of   the   IPC,  as   well   as,   the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 19. The compromise deed, Annexure P­2, and the statements of the parties, recorded today, in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 20. Pending   miscellaneous   applications,   if   any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge October 06, 2025(ps)