1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 1231 of 2024 Decided on : 9.7.2025 Naresh Kumar & ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P.& anr. …Respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________ For the Petitioners : Petitioners in person with Mr. Dhiraj Thakur and Ms. Priyanka Chandel, Advocates. For the Respondents :Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Addl. A.G., for respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 in person with Ms. Shikha Chauhan, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) seeking 2 quashing of FIR No. 206 of 2016, dated 5.9.2016, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) with Police Station, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in view of the compromise, having been effected, between the petitioners and respondent No. 2. 2. According to the petitioners, FIR in question was registered against them at the instance of respondent No. 2, due to matrimonial dispute, having been arisen between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2. 3. After registration of the FIR, the criminal machinery swung into motion. After completion of the investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. was submitted in the trial Court. 4. During the pendency of the case, before learned trial Court, the parties have settled the matter. As per settlement, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have decided to part their ways. 3 5. On the basis of above, a prayer has been made to allow the present petition. 6. When put to notice, respondent No. 1 has filed the status report, disclosing therein the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and the Police has investigated the matter and submitted report under Section 173(2) Cr. P.C., before the learned trial Court. 7. Today, the person, who, at one point of time, had levelled the allegations, against the petitioners, i.e. respondent No. 2, appeared and stated, on oath, that she was married to petitioner No. 1 and thereafter, dispute had arisen between them, due to matrimonial discord. Thereafter, according to her, she had lodged FIR against the petitioners, in which, police has conducted the investigation and submitted the report under Section 173(2) of the Cr. P.C., which is pending before the learned trial Court. 8. According to respondent No. 2, she and petitioner No. 1 have decided to part their ways, as such, she and petitioner No. 1 have filed petition under Sections 13-(1) (a) and 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District 4 Bilaspur, H.P., and their marriage has been dissolved vide judgment and decree, dated 7.12.2012, Anneuxre P-3. 9. On the basis of compromise, Annexure P-4, she has categorically stated that she has no objection, in case the FIR, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 10. Similar type of joint statement has also been made by the petitioners, in which, they have also reiterated the terms and conditions of the compromise, Annexure P-4. 11. On the basis of joint statement, made by the petitioners, they have sought relief, as claimed in the petition. 12. Heard. 13. As per the stand taken by the parties, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 got married to each other, but compelled by the circumstances, they are litigating with each other. However, when it was not possible for them to live together, as husband-wife, they dissolved their marriage, by way of their mutual consent. Apart from dissolving their marriage, they have settled all the interse disputes, vide compromise Annexure P-4. Thus, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise. 5 14. Parties to the present lis, i.e. petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have settled the inter se disputes having been arisen between them, by dissolving their marriage. The compromise is Annexure P-4, according to which, the parties have settled all their disputes and bound themselves by the same. As such, continuation of proceedings, before the learned trial Court is nothing, but, the abuse of process of law. 15. When, the aggrieved wife, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, by lodging the FIR, against her husband (petitioner No. 1), father-in-law (petitioner No. 2), mother-in-law (petitioner No. 3) and sister-in-law (petitioner No. 4) has settled the matter with the petitioners, that too, by dissolving the marriage with petitioner No. 1, then, chances of success of prosecution case, in this case, are not so bright. 16. Acceptance of the compromise will also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, as the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote such time, for deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it. 6 17. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR in question and the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 18. The statements, so recorded, before this Court, as well as, compromise Annexure P-4, shall form part of the judgment. 19. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge July 9, 2025 Kalpana