Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:HHC:39165 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 998 of 2025 Decided on : 19.11.2025 Anant Ram & Anr. …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 : Petitioners in person, with Mr. Narendra Guleria, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional A.G., with Ms. Ranjana Patial, Deputy A.G. for respondent No.1/State. Respondents No. 2 and 3 in person with Mr. K.R. Kashyap, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge Petitioners have approached this Court, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No. 71/2022, dated 06.10.2022, under Sections 354B, 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:39165 323, 504, 34 of Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as “FIR in question”) registered with Police Station Dhanotu, District Mandi, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the learned trial Court”), on the basis of the compromise, which is stated to have taken place between the petitioners and respondents No. 2 & 3. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners on the ground that on 06.10.2022, on the statement of respondent No. 2, FIR in question was registered against them, in which, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted charge sheet before the learned trial Court. It is their further case that during the pendency of those proceedings, matter has now been compromised with the intervention of the respectable members of the society and on the basis of compromise, a prayer for quashing of the FIR has been made. 3. When put to notice, police filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 06.10.2022, Pradhan
3 2025:HHC:39165 Gram Panchayat Dayargi, telephonically informed the Police that a quarrel had taken place in village Tamroh Chauntra and asked the police to visit the spot. On reaching the spot, HC Nek Ram recorded the statement of Pushpa Devi (respondent No. 2), wherein she disclosed that on 05.10.2022, at around 3:00 – 4:00 pm, she noticed that Anant Ram (petitiner No. 1) had locked the iron gate. She immediately complained to Sh.
Balak Ram, Pradhan Gram Panchayat Kot, who replied that he will visit tomorrow. On 06.10.2022, Pradhan Balak Ram and Ward Member Bhadar Singh appeared to resolve the matter. They explained to Anant Ram (petitioner No. 1) that both parties have a common route through this gate. Pushpa Devi expressed her right to the road and gate, upon which, Anant Ram grabbed her by her hair in front of the village Pradhan and members, threw her on the ground and tore her clothes in front of everyone. His wife, Daya Devi (petitioner No. 2) also joined him in this altercation. When, her sisterinlaw Umavati, came to rescue her from the assault, Anant Ram assaulted her and tore her clothes also. Anant Ram beat her and her sisterinlaw Umavati
4 2025:HHC:39165 with fists in front of everyone on the road, near the iron gate. On the basis of above facts, the police registered the FIR. The complainant and injured were medically examined. Accused persons were arrested and bound down under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, on the completion of investigation, police has filed the charge sheet, which is pending before the learned trial Court. 4. Complainant has been impleaded as respondent No. 2 in this case, who has put appearance along with her Counsel. Respondent No. 2 has made a categorical statement that she and petitioners are neighbours and on account of scuffle, she had lodged the FIR against the petitioner, upon which, the police registered the FIR in question and conducted the investigation. After the investigation, chargesheet has been filed, which is pending before the learned trial Court. 5. According to respondent No. 2, with the intervention of respectables of the society, the matter has now been compromised in terms of compromise Annexure P2, which bears her signatures encircled red at point A. The said compromise is stated to have been effected
5 2025:HHC:39165 between the parties in order to maintain their cordial relations. She has also deposed that the compromise has been effected, out of her sweet free will and without any coercion. 6.
Respondent No. 3, has also deposed that due to some trivial matter with regard to passage, a dispute has arisen and now the matter has been compromised, as they are of the same family. The dispute has now been resolved in terms of compromise Annexure P2, which bears her signatures encircled red at point B.
7. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioners. 8. Heard. 9. Respondent No. 2, who, at one point of time, had alleged against the petitioners and on her statement, FIR in question has been registered against the petitioners, today appeared before this Court, and reiterated the said factual position, however, she has stated that now, with the intervention of respectable persons of the society, the matter has been compromised. This Court is satisfied with regard to the genuineness of the compromise between the
6 2025:HHC:39165 parties and it seems that the compromise is being effected in order to maintain future cordial relations, between the parties. 10. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society. When, the petitioners and respondents No. 2 & 3 have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, then, permitting the proceedings to continue, before the learned trial Court, would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law. 11. 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. 12. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 71 of 2022, dated 06.10.2022, registered with Police Station Dhanotu, District Mandi, H.P., under Sections 354B, 341, 323, 504, 34 of the IPC, as well as, the proceedings, resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 7 2025:HHC:39165
13.
The compromise deed, Annexure P2 and the statements of the parties, recorded today, shall form part of the judgment. 14. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge 19th November, 2025 (Pramod)