1   2025:HHC:39220 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.883 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.11.2025 Deepak Kunddu & 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. Ashok K. Tyagi and Ms. Divya Rajta, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3/State. Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. 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.17 of 2021, dated 03.08.2021, (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Women Police Station, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., under Sections 498A, 406, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2   2025:HHC:39220 which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). 2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the basis of the compromise, effected between the parties. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.1 is the husband of complainant/respondent No.4 and petitioners No.2 to 4 are the mother in law, brother in law and sister in law of respondent No.4. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4 solemnized marriage on 04.06.2020. After some time of marriage, due to differences in thoughts, opinion and non- compatibility, both of them could not live together, as husband and wife and are living separately for more than four years. They are unable to live together, as husband and wife, despite various efforts made by their elders and relatives. 4. According to the petitioners, the marriage of petitioner No.1 was solemnized with respondent No.4, on 04.06.2020. Thereafter, some matrimonial dispute had arisen between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4, and subsequently, respondent No.4 had lodged the FIR, in question, against the petitioners. 3   2025:HHC:39220 5. It is the case of the petitioners that after registration of FIR, the police had investigated the matter and the final report, under Section 173(2) of CrPC, was submitted, which is pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 6. It is the further case of the petitioners that thereafter, joint petition, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, was filed, before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., for dissolution of the marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4. 7. According to the petitioners, now, the matter has been compromised between the parties, vide Compromise Deed, Annexure P-4. 8. On the basis of the said compromise, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, by quashing the FIR, in question, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court. 9. When, put to notice, respondents 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 4   2025:HHC:39220 manner, in which, the investigation has been conducted, by the police, in this case. 10. Today, respondent No.4-Reena Singh, has put appearance before this Court and made a statement, that the marriage was solemnized between respondent No.4 and petitioner No.1 on 04.06.2020. However, after the marriage, due to non-compatibility of temperament, it was not possible for her to live in the matrimonial home with her husband (petitioner No.1) and due to all these facts, she had lodged the FIR, in question, against the petitioners. 11. As per further deposition of respondent No.4, thereafter, a joint petition, under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been filed in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., for dissolution of their marriage. 12. Respondent No.4 has further deposed that the matter has been compromised between respondent No.4 and the petitioners and as such, respondent No.4 does not want to proceed further with the FIR, in question. 13. Apart from this, respondent No.4 has also shown her voluntariness and willingness to enter into the compromise with the petitioners, by stating that respondent No.4 has 5   2025:HHC:39220 entered into the compromise with the petitioners voluntarily and without any influence from any person. 14. In addition to this, respondent No.4 has also deposed that she has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR, in question, as well as, the proceedings resultant, thereto, which are pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 15. Similar type of statements have also been made by the petitioners, on oath. 16. Heard. 17. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.4, by lodging the FIR, in question, against the petitioners, however, when, appeared before this Court, she has exonerated the petitioners from the allegations, as levelled, in this case. 18. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioners from the allegations, by compromising the matter, then, the chances of success of prosecution case, against the petitioners, are not so bright. 19. When, the parties admittedly have decided to part their ways and buried all their disputes, by compromising the 6   2025:HHC:39220 matter, vide Compromise Deed, Annexure P-4, then, permitting the proceedings to continue would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law. 20. 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, respondent No.4 to live peacefully in the society. 21. 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. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the Compromise Deed, Annexure P-4, entered into between the parties. 22. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.17 of 2021 dated 03.08.2021, registered with Police Station Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., under Section 498A, 406, 506 & 34 of the IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P, against the petitioners, are ordered to be quashed. 7   2025:HHC:39220 23. The settlement deed/compromise, Annexure P-4, and the statements of the parties, recorded in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 24. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (Virender Singh) Judge November 19, 2025 (subhash)