( 2025:HHC:2305 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.20 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.01.2025 Rajinder Kumar & 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 : Ms. Deepa, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General with Ms. Ranjana Patial, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2/State. Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.95/2023, dated 02.10.2023, registered with Police Station Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, H.P., under Sections 498-A and 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:2305 ) Kinnaur, District Kinnaur, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). 2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties. 3. According to the petitioners, on the statement of respondent No.3, the FIR, in question, has been registered against them. 4. After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, which is now pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. 5. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which are annexed with the petition, as, Annexure P-2. 6. 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. 7. When put to notice, the State has filed the status report, disclosing therein the manner, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered and the manner, in which, the ( 2025:HHC:2305 ) police has investigated the matter and submitted the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC., before the learned trial Court. 8. The person, who, at one point of time, has levelled the allegations against the petitioners, and has lodged the FIR, in question, appeared today, before this Court and made a statement, on oath, that dispute had arisen between her and petitioner No.1. Due to the said fact, she had lodged the FIR, in question, against the petitioners. Apart from deposing about the factual position, she has also asserted that compromise, Annexure P-2, has been effected between her and the petitioners. 9. In addition to this, respondent No.3, has deposed that since the matrimonial dispute between her and petitioner No.1, has now been settled and both are residing happily in matrimonial home, she has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for. 10. Similar type of statement has been made by the petitioners, on oath. 11. Heard. 12. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3, were married in the year 2023. Later on, compelled by the circumstances, their relations became strained and due to the said fact, respondent No.3, has lodged, the FIR, in question. ( 2025:HHC:2305 ) 13. As per the stand taken by the parties, since the matrimonial dispute between them has now been settled, petitioners and respondent No.3 are residing happily in the matrimonial home and the matter has been compromised, between them. The terms and conditions of the compromise, have been placed on record as Annexure P-2. 14. The criminal machinery, in the present case, has swung into motion, by respondent No.3, by lodging the FIR, in question. Now, as per the stand taken by the petitioners, as well as, respondent No.3, they have compromised the matter, in view of the compromise, Annexure P-2. 15. If, the statement of respondent No.2, is considered, in the light of the compromise, then, this Court is of the view that the chances of success of the prosecution case against the petitioners are not so bright, as, the person, who, at one point of time, has put the criminal machinery into motion, now, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that the matter has been compromised and on the basis of the compromise, she does not want to continue with the case. Now she is residing happily in the matrimonial home. 16. The primary purpose of the law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society. When, the petitioners and respondent ( 2025:HHC:2305 ) No.3 have buried all the disputes, although, in negative terms, then, permitting the proceedings to continue, would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law. 17. Even otherwise, the 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. 18. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.95/2023, dated 02.10.2023, registered under Sections 498-A and 34 of IPC, with Police Station Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 19. The compromise deed, Annexure P-2, and the statements of the parties, shall form part of the judgment. 20. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (Virender Singh) Judge January 09, 2025 (subhash)