( 2025:HHC:1104 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.1321 of 2024 Decided on : 06.01.2025 Ritakshi Kanwar & Another …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. Sunil Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Bhanu Verma, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 5. 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.10/2024, dated 19.03.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Cyber Crime Police Station, Southern Range, Shimla, H.P., under Sections 66D of the Information and Technology Act, (hereinafter 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2025:HHC:1104 ) referred to as the IT Act’) and Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto. 2. The relief of quashing has been sought, on the basis of the compromise, which has taken place between the petitioners and respondents No.4 and 5. 3. According to the petitioners, on the statement of respondent No.4, the FIR, in question, has been registered against them. 4. After registration of the FIR, the police is conducting investigation in the matter. During the pendency of the investigation, the petitioners have compromised the matter with respondents No.4 and 5. 5. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, vide compromise deeds, Annexure P-2 and Ex.PA. 6. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made that the FIR, in question, as well as, proceedings, resultant thereto, if any, may kindly be quashed and set aside, by allowing the petition. 3 ( 2025:HHC:1104 ) 7. When put to notice, respondent No.1 to 3-State has filed the status report, mentioning therein the circumstances, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.4, as well as, the manner, in which, the investigation in the matter is going on. 8. Respondent No.4, who, at one point of time, had put the criminal machinery into motion, appeared before this Court and has stated, on oath, that he had entered into the compromise with the petitioners, out of his free will, consent and without any pressure. He has also admitted his signatures on the Compromise Deeds, Annexure P-2 and Ex.PA. He, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for. 9. Similar type of statements have also been made by respondent No.5, as well as, the petitioners, on oath. 10. Heard. 11. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.4, by lodging the FIR, in question, who initially had levelled the allegations against 4 ( 2025:HHC:1104 ) the petitioners, however, when appeared before this Court, he has exonerated the petitioners from the allegations. 12. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioners from the allegations, the chances of success of prosecution case against the petitioners are not so bright. 13. When the parties, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide Compromise Deeds, Annexure P-2 and Ex.PA, then, permitting the proceedings to continue against the petitioners, would be nothing, but, abuse of process of law. 14. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society. Acceptance of the petition, would also give another opportunity to the petitioners, as well as, respondents No.4 and 5 to live peacefully in the society. 15. Even otherwise, 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. 5 ( 2025:HHC:1104 ) 16. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise deeds Annexure P-2 and Ex.PA, entered into between the parties. 17. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.10/2024, dated 19.03.2024, registered with Cyber Crime Police Station, Southern Range, Shimla, H.P., under Sections 66D of the IT Act and Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, if any, are ordered to be quashed. 18. The Compromise Deeds, Annexure P-2 and Ex.PA, and the statements of the parties, recorded today, in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 19. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge January 06, 2025(ps)