Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:HHC:36855 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. : 951 of 2025 Decided on
: 31.10.2025 Rakesh Kumar & Others …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 : Petitioner No.3, in person with Mr.Mukesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rohit
Sharma,
Deputy Advocate General,
for respondent No.1. Mr. Vishal Verma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. 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.91 of 2023, dated 12.04.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, West 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:36855 Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 363, 365, 342, 323, 504 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). 2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the basis of the compromise, which has taken place between the petitioners and respondents No.2 and 3. 3. According to the petitioners, on the complaint of respondent No.3, the FIR, in question, has been registered against them. 4. It has been contended that the FIR, in question, has been lodged by respondent No.3, alleging therein that on 12.02.2023, the petitioners had committed house trespass and started abusing them. Thereafter, they had kidnapped her husband and she had apprehension that they can beat and cause injuries to him. As such, she has prayed that action be taken against the petitioners. 3 2025:HHC:36855
5. After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the final report, which is stated to be pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. 5. According to the petitioners, during the pendency of the case, they and respondents No.2 and 3, have compromised, the matter. 6. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which are annexed with the petition, as, Annexure P2. 7.
On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made that the FIR, as well as, proceedings, resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, may kindly be quashed and set aside, by allowing the petition. 8. When put to notice, respondent No.1State has filed the status report, mentioning therein the manner, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.3, and the manner, in which, the police has investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet, which is pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. 4 2025:HHC:36855
9. The
petitioners
have
impleaded
the complainant, as respondent No.3 and the victim as respondent No.2. 10. The person, who, at one point of time, had levelled the allegations against the petitioners, and had lodged the FIR, in question, appeared, before this Court and made a statement, on oath, that due to some misunderstanding, she has lodged FIR, in question, against the petitioners. After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the final report, which is pending before the learned trial Court. 10. Respondent No.3, has further deposed that now, during the pendency of the trial, the matter has been compromised between her, respondent No.2 and the petitioners. She has specifically stated that she has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for. 11. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioners, on oath. 12. Heard. 5 2025:HHC:36855
14. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.3, by lodging the FIR, in question, who initially had levelled the allegations against the petitioners, however, when appeared before this Court, she has submitted that the matter has been compromised between, her, respondent No.2 and the petitioners. 15.
Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has compromised the matter with the petitioners, in such situation, the chances of success of prosecution case against the petitioners are not so bright. 16. When the parties, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise deed Annexure P2, then, permitting the proceedings to continue against the petitioners, would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law. 17. 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.2 and 3 to live peacefully in the society. 6 2025:HHC:36855
18. Even otherwise, acceptance of the compromise, by this Court, will save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, which, the learned Court would be in a position to devote for the decision of some other serious matters, pending before it. 19. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P2, entered into between the parties. 20. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.91 of 2023, dated 12.02.2023, registered with Police Station, West Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 363, 365, 342, 323 504, and Section 34 of the IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 21. The compromise deed, Annexure P2, and the statements of the parties, recorded in this case, in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 22. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) October 31, 2025(ps) Judge