2025:HHC:42488 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 1110 of 2025 Decided on : 08.12.2025 Prakash Chand & 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. Atul Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional A.Gs., with Mr. Rohit Sharma and Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy A.Gs. for respondents No. 1 and 2- State. Respondent No. 3 in person with Mr. Lokesh Thakur, 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 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:42488 No. 14/2019 dated 16.04.2019, (hereinafter referred to as “FIR in question”) registered under Sections 354-B, 506, 509 read with Section 34 of IPC, with Women Police Station Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”), on the basis of the compromise, which is stated to have taken place between the petitioners and respondent No. 3. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the FIR in question was registered at the instance of respondent No. 3, in which, she had alleged that while washing clothes near village well, petitioners No. 1 and 2, came there and misbehaved with her. When, she resisted, they used indecent language, touched her private parts and tried to forcibly remove her clothes. They also threatened to kill her and her husband, if they complained. All of a sudden Kyasho Devi arrived and both the petitioners, fled away. Thereafter, respondent No. 3, reported the matter to the police. 3 2025:HHC:42488 3. On the basis of the above facts, police registered the FIR in question and criminal machinery swung into motion. 4. As stated above, after completion of the investigation, police has filed the charge sheet, which is pending before the learned trial Court. 5. As per the case of the petitioners, during the pendency of the proceedings, before the learned trial Court, the matter has been settled between the parties, as, they are relatives and from the same village. The terms and conditions of the compromise were reduced into writing and the same has been annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-3. On the basis of Annexure P-3, a prayer has been made to allow the petition by quashing the FIR in question. 6. When put to notice, respondents No. 1 and 2/State have filed the status report, disclosing therein, the manner, in which the FIR in question has been registered and the manner, in which, the police had conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the petitioners, which is pending before the learned trial Court. 4 2025:HHC:42488 7. Respondent No. 3, who, at one point of time, had levelled the allegations against the petitioners, however, when appeared before this Court, has exonerated the petitioners from the allegations, which have been levelled against them, affirming that the FIR, in question, was lodged by her on account of a trivial matter and now, the matter has been compromised between them, as petitioners and respondent No. 3 are of the same family and they want to live peacefully in the society. The said compromise has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-3. 8. Respondent No. 3 has also deposed that she has no objection, if the petition is allowed, in view of the compromise and the FIR in question is quashed. 9. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioners. 10. Heard. 11. In view of the statements of the parties, especially the statement of respondent No. 3, who, at one point of time, had lodged the FIR, in question, but, when appeared before this Court, have exonerated them, by 5 2025:HHC:42488 stating that the matter has been compromised between them. Moreover, this Court is fully satisfied with regard to the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P-3. 12. As per the stand taken by the parties i.e. petitioners, as well as, respondent No. 3, they are not strangers, but, are relatives and residents of same village. 13. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society. When, the petitioners and respondent No. 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. 14. 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. 15. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 14/2019 dated 16.04.2019, registered under Sections 354-B, 506, 509 read with Section 34 of IPC, with Women Police Station Nahan, 6 2025:HHC:42488 District Sirmaur, H.P., as well as, the proceedings, resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 16. The compromise deed, Annexure P-3, and the statements of the parties, recorded today, shall form part of the judgment. 17. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge 08th December, 2025 (Pramod)