1 ( 2025:HHC:33756 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.924 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.09.2025 Vijay Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person, with Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Mr. Varun Chandel and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3/State Respondent No.4 in person, with Ms. Abhilash Kaundal, 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 No.48 of 2023, dated 04.09.2023, (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station Chintpurni, District Una, H.P., under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), as well as, the proceedings 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:33756 ) resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Amb, District Una, 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, he has solemnized marriage with respondent No.4 on 08.10.2019. Thereafter, some matrimonial dispute has arisen between petitioner and respondent No.4. Subsequently, respondent No.4 has lodged the FIR, in question, against the petitioner. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that after registration of FIR, the police has investigated the matter and the final report, under Section 173(2) of Cr.PC, has been submitted, which is pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 5. According to the petitioner, thereafter, the matter has been compromised between both the parties, vide Annexure P-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 No.1 to 3/State has filed the status report, mentioning therein, the circumstances, in 3 ( 2025:HHC:33756 ) which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.4, as well as, the manner, in which, the investigation has been conducted, by the police, in this case. 8. Today, respondent No.4, who, had put criminal machinery into motion, has appeared in Court and has made a statement, on oath, about the manner, in which, she has lodged the FIR in question and factum of the compromise, which has been effected, between the parties, in order to maintain cordial relations, between them. 9. Lastly, respondent No.4, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that she does not want to proceed further with the matter, as, the parties want to live in peace and harmony in future. She has also stated that she is happily residing with the petitioner at the matrimonial home and has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question and the proceedings resultant thereto, which are pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 10. Apart from this, respondent No.4 has also shown her voluntariness and willingness to enter into the compromise with the petitioner, by stating that she has entered into the compromise with the petitioner voluntarily and without any influence from any person. 4 ( 2025:HHC:33756 ) 11. Today i.e. on 24.09.2025, similar statement of the petitioner has also been recorded, on oath. 12. Heard. 13. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.4, by lodging the FIR, in question, against the petitioner, however, when, appeared before this Court, she has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations, as levelled, in this case. 14. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations, by stating, on oath, that the matter has been compromised between them, in such situation, the chances of success of prosecution case, against the petitioners, are not so bright. 15. When, the parties admittedly have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide Annexure P-3, then, permitting the proceedings to continue, would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law. 16. As per the stand taken by the parties, now, the husband and wife i.e. petitioner and respondent No.4, are residing together, in the matrimonial home, as such, prayer so made, in the petition is liable to be accepted. 5 ( 2025:HHC:33756 ) 17. 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. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise (Annexure P-3), entered into between the parties. 18. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.48 of 2023, dated 04.09.2023, registered under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 of IPC, with Police Station Chintpurni, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, against the petitioner, are ordered to be quashed. 19. The compromise, Annexure P-3, and the statements of the parties, recorded today in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 20. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (Virender Singh) Judge September 24, 2025 (subhash)