1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 44 of 2025 Decided on : 28.8.2025 Deepak Sharma & others …Petitioners Versus State of H.P.& anr. …Respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________ For the Petitioners : Mr.Sunny Modgil, Advocate. For the Respondents :Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Addl. A.G., for respondent No. 1. Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) seeking quashing of FIR No. 25 of 2019, dated 20.2.2019, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered 2 under Sections 498-A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) with Police Station, Gagret, District Una, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. II, Amb, District Una, 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. Brief facts, as borne out from the record are that the complainant/respondent No. 2 made a complaint before the Police of Police Station, Gagret, District Una, H.P., mentioning therein that she got married to petitioner No. 1, on 4.3.2017, as per Hindu rites and customs. After three months of the marriage, the petitioners insisted respondent No. 2 to bring a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- cash, from her father, as dowry, upon which, she showed the inability of her father to give such a huge amount. When, respondent No. 2 refused to accede to the demand of the petitioners, the petitioners started levelling allegations of being characterless, upon her. 2.1 In the month of July, 2018, the petitioners are stated to have beaten respondent No. 2 and petitioner No. 3 1 is stated to have kicked her, on her stomach, resultant to which, she delivered a dead fetus, on 11.7.2018. Thereafter, the petitioners thrown respondent No. 2 out of the matrimonial home, by saying that respondent No. 2 delivers the dead fetus and did not allow her to return back, until she brings a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- from her father. 3. On the basis of above facts, respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR in question, against the petitioners. 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. 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 4 investigated the matter and submitted report under Section 173(2) Cr. P.C., before the learned trial Court. 7. On 19.8.2025, 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(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Una, H.P., and their marriage has been dissolved, vide judgment and decree, dated 18.1.2025 and now, she has re-married one Kapil Tehlyani. 9. On the basis of compromise, Annexure P-2, she has categorically stated that she has no objection, in case 5 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 petitioners No. 1 to 4, in which, they have also reiterated the terms and conditions of the compromise, Annexure P-2. 11. On 19.8.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioner moved Cr. M.P. No. 3603 of 2025, with a prayer to get petitioner No. 5 examined through the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Amb, District Una, keeping in view her old age and medical condition. Consequently, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Amb Distirct Una, was directed to record the statement of petitioner No. 5. The said Court, after recording her statement on 22.8.2025 , submitted the same to this Court. In her statement, respondent No. 5, has also reiterated the terms and conditions of the compromise, Annexure P-2. 12. On the basis of statements, made by the petitioners, they have sought the relief, as claimed in the petition. 13. Heard. 6 14. 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 mutual consent. Apart from dissolving their marriage, they have settled all the interse disputes, vide compromise Annexure P-2. Thus, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise. 15. 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-2, 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. 16. When, the aggrieved wife, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, by lodging the FIR, against her husband (petitioner No. 1), brother-in-law (petitioner No. 2), father-in-law (petitioner No. 3) mother- in-law (petitioner No. 4) and grandmother-in-law (petitioner 7 No. 5) 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. The statements, so recorded, before this Court, as well as, compromise Annexure P-2, shall form part of the judgment. 20. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge August 28, 2025 (Kalpana)