( 2025:HHC:2251 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.1271 of 2024 Date of Decision: 08.01.2025 Ravinder Kumar @ Monu & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General with Ms. Ranjana Patial, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State. Mr. Ajay Thakur, 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.08/2023, dated 24.01.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 341, 324, 323, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:2251 504, 506 and 34 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, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P.,(hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). 2. As per the factual position, respondent No.2, who is mother of Sachin Kumar (deceased), due to scuffle of her son had lodged the FIR in question, against the petitioners. Now, as per the stand taken by the petitioner, matter has been compromised, between the parties, vide Compromise Deed Annexure P-3. 3. 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. 4. When put to notice, respondent No.1-State has filed the status report, mentioning therein the manner, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of Sachin Kumar(deceased), who is son of respondent No.2, as well as, the manner, in which, the police has conducted the investigation and thereafter, submitted the ( 2025:HHC:2251 charge sheet, against the petitioners, which is pending before the learned trial Court. 5. Today, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, i.e. respondent No.2, mother of Sachin Kumar (deceased), has put appearance and her statement, on oath, has been recorded. In her statement on oath, she has deposed about the factual position, that scuffle, her son Sachin Kumar (deceased), had lodged the FIR in question against the petitioners. Now, according to her, the matter has been settled between the parties, vide Compromise Annexure P-3. She has not only identified her signatures over the compromise Annexure P-3, but, also stated that the compromise has been effected between us out of his free will and consent. 6. On the basis of the above facts, respondent No.2, in unequivocal terms, has stated that she has no objection, if the present petition is allowed by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto pending before the learned trial Court. 7. Similar type of statements have been made by the petitioners. 8. Heard. ( 2025:HHC:2251 9. Now, with the intervention of the respectable persons of the society, petitioners, as well as, respondent No.2, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise Annexure P-3. 10. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society. When the matter has been compromised between the parties, in that eventuality, if the proceedings are allowed to be continued then, it would be nothing, but, abuse of process of law. 11. Apart from this, respondent No.2 has also deposed that with the intervention of the respectable persons of the society and in order to maintain their future cordial relations, the matter has been compromised, between them, vide Compromise Deed, Annexure P-3. She has also deposed that in view of the said compromise, she has no objection, if the petition is allowed, as prayed for. 12. Even otherwise, acceptance of the compromise, in the present case 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. ( 2025:HHC:2251 13. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise, Annexure P-3, entered into between the parties. 14. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.08/2023, dated 24.01.2023, registered with Police Station Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 341, 324, 323, 504, 506 & 34 of IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 15. The statements of the parties recorded today and the Compromise Deed, Annexure P-3, shall form part of the judgment. 16. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (Virender Singh) Judge January 08, 2025 (subhash)