1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 961 of 2025 Decided on: 14.10.2025 Kine Ram @ Kinu & ors. … Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & ors. …Respondents _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Petitioners : Petitioners in person with Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. Varun Chandel, Addl. AGs, for the respondent No.1-State. Respondents No. 2 and 3 in person with Mr. Manjeet Singh, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) The petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.) for quashing of FIR No. 118 of 2022, dated 19.7.2022 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 451, 323, 336, 427, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and Sections 2 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SC & ST Act’) with Police Station, Aut, District Mandi, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, stated to be pending before the Court of learned Special Judge (Family Court) Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’). 2. The factual position, as emerges from the record is that complainant Mine Ram moved a complaint before the Police of Police Station, Aut, District Mandi, H.P., disclosing therein that on 18.7.2022, a fare of Mata Ambika Ji took place in his village, in which, cultural programme was being organized by the President, Mahila Mandal, Adarsh Ambika Mata, Pokhri Dhar. Smt.Gori Devi is stated to be the President of the Mahila Mandal and the wife of the complainant is stated to be the Secretary of the same. The dinner for the guests and the artists, invited in the cultural programme, was being prepared in the house of the complainant by him 3 and his cousin Heeru Ram. At about 11:45 p.m., when, the complainant and his cousin Heeru Ram were standing in the verandah of their house, then, petitioners started abusing the complainant and his cousin and also broke the wooden staircase of his house. They are also stated to have beaten them up. The complainant also got recorded in his statement that the petitioners had made caste based aspersions upon them. 3. Thereafter, on the statement of respondent No. 2, FIR in question has been lodged against the petitioners. After registration of the FIR, Police has conducted investigation in the matter and filed charge sheet against the petitioners, which is stated to be pending, in the learned trial Court. 4. It is also the case of the petitioners that now, the matter has been compromised, in pursuance of compromise, Annexure P-1, as the parties are residents of the same area and want to maintain their cordial relations, in future. 4 5. On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, has been made. 6. When put to notice, respondent-State has filed status report, disclosing therein, the factual position, about the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and criminal machinery swung into motion. 7. It is the further case of respondent- State that after completion of investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. has been filed, which is pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 8. The person, who had put criminal machinery into motion, by making statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C., before the Police, i.e. respondent No. 2, has appeared in Court today and has made a statement, on oath, about the manner, in which, he has lodged the FIR in question and factum of the compromise, 5 which has been effected, between the parties, in order to maintain cordial relations between him, respondent No. 3 and the petitioners, as they want to live peacefully in the society. 9. Lastly, respondent No. 2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he does not want to proceed further with the matter. 10. Respondent No. 3 has also deposed on the similar lines. 11. Similar type of joint statement has also been made by the petitioners, on oath. 12. Heard. 13. Complainant/respondent No. 2 has categorically stated, in his statement, on oath, that the compromise has been effected between the parties, in order to maintain their cordial relations, in future, as they are residents of the same area. 14. In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P- 1, which bears the signatures of petitioners, and respondents No. 2 and 3 respondent No. 2 does not 6 want to proceed further with the case and has no objection, in case, the FIR in question, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed and the present petition is allowed. 15. Moreover, when, the parties have settled the dispute with regard to FIR in question, then the compromise, which has been entered into between the parties, annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1, should be honoured by this Court, as no useful purpose would be served, by keeping the proceedings alive. 16. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace in the society and when, the parties to the lis, i.e. petitioners, and respondent Nos. 2 and 3, have buried all their disputes and compromised the matter, then, the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of FIR in question, lodged by respondent No. 2, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law. 7 17. Acceptance of the compromise would also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, as, the learned trial Court would 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, as well as, proceedings consequent thereto, pending adjudication before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 19. The statements of the parties and the compromise, Annexure P-1, be read as part of the judgment. 20. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge 14.10.2025 Kalpana