2025:HHC:44602 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 1178 of 2025 Decided on : 18.12.2025 Saroj Kumari & Ors. …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 : All petitioners in person, with Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, assisted by HC Sandeep Patial No. 34, I.O. Police Station Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P., for respondents No.1 to 3/State. Respondent No. 4 in person with Ms. Kalaunta Devi, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioners have approached this Court, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:44602 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No. 161/2019, dated 25.10.2019, (hereinafter referred to as “FIR in question”) registered under Sections 341, 147, 149, 506, 427 of IPC, with Police Station Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2, Dehra, District Kangra, 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. 4. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the FIR in question was registered at the instance of respondent No. 4, Sh. Partap Singh, in which, he had alleged that on 26.06.2019, at about 5:30 pm, group of women from Jamuli village, came with sticks in their hands to the liquor vend and after entering inside, broke the stock of 48 cartons of foreign liquor and beer, due to which, he has suffered a loss of about one and half lakh rupees and about Rs. 10,000/- have also disappeared. The papers of the shop were also missing, which were given to him by the Pradhan of the Panchayat. They have given beatings and 3 2025:HHC:44602 have manhandled him, Sunil Kumar and Suresh Kumar. Thereafter, respondent No. 4, reported the matter to the police. 3. On the basis of 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, with the intervention of the respectable members of the society. The terms and conditions of the compromise were reduced into writing and the same has been annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-2. On the basis of Annexure P-2, a prayer has been made to allow the petition by quashing the FIR in question. 6. When put to notice, respondents No. 1 to 3/State have filed the status report, disclosing therein, the manner, in which the FIR in question has been registered 4 2025:HHC:44602 and how the police had conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the petitioners, which is pending before the learned trial Court. 7. Respondent No. 4, who at one point of time, had levelled the allegations against the petitioners, when appeared before this Court today, has made his statement, exonerating the petitioners from the allegations, which have been levelled against them, affirming that the FIR in question was lodged by respondent No. 4 (Partap Singh) on account of a trivial matter and now, matter has been compromised between them, with the intervention of the respectable members of the society. The said compromise has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. 8. Respondent No. 4 has also deposed that he 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 jointly. 10. Heard. 11. In view of the statements of the parties, especially the statements of respondent No. 4, who at one 5 2025:HHC:44602 point of time, had lodged the FIR in question, but, when appeared before this Court, have exonerated them, by stating that the matter has been compromised between them, with the intervention of the respectable members of the society, this Court is fully satisfied with regard to the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P-2. 12. As per the stand taken by the parties i.e. petitioners, as well as, respondent No. 4, the scuffle had taken place on account of a trivial matter and the matter has now been compromised. 13. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society. When, the petitioners and respondent No. 4 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. 6 2025:HHC:44602 15. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 161/2019 dated 25.10.2019, registered under Sections 341, 147, 149, 506, 427 of IPC, with Police Station Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, 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-2, 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 18th December, 2025 (Pramod)