( 2025:HHC:4598 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.1191 of 2024 Decided on : 03.03.2025 Munish Pathania & Others …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Mohit Jaitak, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Tawat, Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1. Mr. Hitansh Raj, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Virender Singh, Judge (oral). Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.28/2023, dated 05.07.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Women Police Station, Una, District Una, H.P., under Section 498-A 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 Chief Judicial 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2025:HHC:4598 ) Magistrate, Una, 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, which has taken place between the petitioners and respondent No.2. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 was married to respondent No.2, on 18.02.2018. Thereafter, due to non-compatibility between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, respondent No.2 had lodged FIR, in question, in which, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the final report, which is pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. 4. It is the further case of the petitioners that during the pendency of the trial, the matter has been compromised, between the parties, vide compromise deed Ex.P-2. 5. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to quash the FIR, in question, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, by allowing the petition. 3 ( 2025:HHC:4598 ) 6. When put to notice, respondent No.1 has filed the reply to the petition, mentioning therein the manner, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.2, as well as, the manner, in which, the police has conducted the investigation, in this case and submitted the final report, which is pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 7. The person, who, at one point of time, had put the criminal machinery into motion, by lodging the FIR, in question, by levelling allegations, as mentioned in it, now has settled the matter with the petitioners, vide compromise Ex.P-2. 8. Respondent No.2, while appearing before this Court, has deposed that she was married to petitioner No.1, on 18.02.2018. She has further deposed that due to differences in temperament, it was not possible for her to live as wife of petitioner No.1, in the matrimonial home and she had lodged FIR, in question, against the petitioners. After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the final report, which is pending before the learned trial Court. 4 ( 2025:HHC:4598 ) 9. Respondent No.2, has further deposed that during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned trial Court, she had filed a petition, under Section 13(1)(ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of marriage, before Principal Judge, Family Court, Una, in which petitioner No.1 has not opted to put appearance and he was proceeded against exparte. Thereafter, exparte decree for divorce has been passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Una, vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.2024, Ex.P-3. 10. Respondent No.2, has further deposed that now, during the pendency of the trial, the matter has been settled between her and the petitioners. She has also stated that all the inter se disputes have been settled between them. She has specifically stated that she has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for. 11. Similar type of statement has also been made by his father and mother, who have been arrayed as petitioners No.2 and 3, on oath. 5 ( 2025:HHC:4598 ) 12. Petitioner No.1 is not present and he has executed a General Power of Attorney, in favour of his father, petitioner No.2. 13. Heard. 14. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, is stated to have taken place on 18.02.2018. However, compelled by the circumstances, it seems that due to some misunderstanding, respondent No.2, had lodged the FIR, in question, against the petitioners, in which, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the final report, which is pending before the learned trial Court. 15. Since, it is not possible for the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, to live together, as such, they have decided to part their ways. Respondent No.2, had also filed a petition under Section 13 (1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Una, for dissolution of marriage with petitioner No.1, in which, the marriage of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1, has been dissolved by a decree of divorce, dated 23.11.2024. As such, permitting the proceedings to 6 ( 2025:HHC:4598 ) continue, before the learned trial Court, would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law. 16. In view of the compromise, entered into between the parties, this Court is also of the view that the chances of success of the case of the prosecution against the accused, are not so bright. 17. Moreover, 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. 18. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.28/2023, dated 05.07.2023, registered with Women Police Station, Una, District Una, H.P., under Section 498-A of the IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 19. The compromise Ex.P-2, and the statements of the parties, recorded today, shall form part of the judgment. 7 ( 2025:HHC:4598 ) 20. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge March 03, 2025 (ps)