1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 634 of 2025 Decided on :21.7.2025 Manohar Lal & 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. Deven Krishan Khanna, Advocate. For the Respondents :Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Addl. A.G., for respondent No.1/State. Mr. Sambhav Bhasin, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) The petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to 2 as ‘the BNSS.) seeking quashing of FIR No. 54/2020, dated 2.4.2020, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), under Sections 498-A, 325, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) registered with Police Station, Bharari, District Bilaspur, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court), in view of the compromise, having been effected, between the parties. 2. It is the admitted case of the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 was married to respondent No. 2, in the year 2003. Thereafter, they have been blessed with two children. However, due to non- compatibility of the temperament, differences have arisen between them and respondent No. 2 lodged FIR in question, against the petitioners, upon which, Police had conducted the investigation and 3 submitted charge-sheet, which is pending, before the learned trial Court. 3. After registration of the FIR, criminal machinery swung into motion. After completion of the investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. was submitted in the learned trial Court. 4. It is the further case of the petitioners that during pendency of the proceedings, before the learned trial Court, with the intervention of the respectables of the society, differences between the petitioners and respondent No. 2 have been sorted out and respondent No. 2 had started residing with petitioner No. 1, in the matrimonial home. 5. Today, respondent No. 2 appeared before this Court and made a statement, on oath, stating that she is residing with her husband (petitioner No. 1) and the dispute has been settled between them. She has further stated that she does not want to proceed further with the case. 4 6. Today, the petitioners are before this Court, with a prayer to quash the FIR in question, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, on the basis of compromise, which has taken place between the parties. The compromise deed is annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-2. 7. On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, resultant proceedings thereto, has been made. 8. When put to notice, respondent-State has filed the status report, disclosing therein the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and Police, after investigating the matter, submitted the report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C., which is pending in the learned trial Court. 9. Heard. 10. Considering the fact that respondent No. 2, who, at one point of time, has lodged the FIR in 5 question against the petitioners, has now settled the matter with them and has started residing with her husband (petitioner No. 1), in her matrimonial home. The efforts, which have been put in by the petitioners, as well as, respondent No. 2, to compromise the matter, vide compromise deed Annexure P-2, must get recognition from the Court, as primary purpose of the law is to maintain peace and harmony, in the society. 11. Acceptance of the compromise would encourage the parties to live peacefully in the society and the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of the FIR in question, lodged by respondent No. 2, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law. 12. 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. 6 13. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR in question registered with Police Station, Bharari, District Bilaspur, H.P., and the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 14. The statements, so recorded, before this Court, as well as, compromise Annexure P-2, shall form part of the judgment. 15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge July 21, 2025 Kalpana