1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 930 of 2025 Decided on : 26.9.2025 Deepak …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & anr. …Respondents ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person with Ms. Kamlesh Kumari, Advocate. For the Respondents :Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Addl. AGs, for respondent No. 1-State. Respondent No. 2 in person with Ms. Kamlesh Shandil, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) The petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.) for quashing of FIR No. 21 of 2025, dated 27.8.2025 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 75(1) and 79 of 2 the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNS’) with FMPS, Shimla. 2. Relief, as claimed for, has been sought on the ground that due to some mis-understanding between the petitioner, and respondent No. 2, FIR in question has been lodged against the petitioner. After registration of the FIR, Police has conducted investigation in the matter, however, charge sheet has yet not been filed. 3. It is also the case of the parties that now, the matter has been compromised, in pursuance of compromise, Annexure P-2, as the parties are related to each other and want to maintain their cordial relations, in future. 4. On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, has been made. 5. When put to notice, respondent-State has filed status report, disclosing therein, the factual position, about the manner, in which, the FIR in 3 question has been registered and criminal machinery swung into motion by pleading that respondent No. 2 made a complaint to the Police, disclosing therein that she is resident of Malyana, Shimla and on 24.8.2025 at about 9:50 a.m., some unknown person, from mobile No. 89886-56587 had made calls twice and used abusive and filthy language. The calls are stated to have been recorded by the complainant. As such, she has prayed that the matter be inquired and action be taken against the said person. 6. The person, who had put criminal machinery into motion, by making statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C., before the Police, i.e. respondent No. 2, has appeared in Court today 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 her, and the petitioner, as the petitioner is her relative. 4 7. Lastly, respondent No. 2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that she does not want to proceed further with the matter. 8. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner, on oath. 9. Heard. 10. Complainant/respondent No. 2 has categorically stated, in his statement, on oath, that the compromise has been effected between the parties, in order to maintain their cordial relations, in future. 11. In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, which bears the signatures of petitioner, and respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 does not want to proceed further with the case and has no objection, in case, the FIR in question, is quashed and the present petition is allowed. 12. Moreover, when, the parties have settled the dispute with regard to FIR in question, then the compromise, which has been entered into between the parties, annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2, 5 should be honoured by this Court, as no useful purpose would be served, by keeping the proceedings alive. 13. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace in the society and when, the parties to the lis, i.e. petitioner, and respondent No. 2, have buried all their disputes and compromised the matter, then, the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of FIR in question, lodged by respondent No. 2, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law. 14. Acceptance of the compromise would also save the precious time of the Police, as, the Police would be in a position to devote such time, for investigating some other serious disputes. 15. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR in question, is quashed. 16. The statements of the parties and the compromise, Annexure P-2, be read as part of the judgment. 6 17. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge September 26, 2025 Kalpana