2025:HHC:11461 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 51 of 2025 Reserved on: 26.03.2025 Date of Decision: ___.04.2025 Abhijit Srivastava & another ...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr. Parnshul Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Parshant Sen, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State. Mr. Parkshit Rathore, Advocate, vice Mr. Pavit, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of F.I.R. No. 01/2023, dated 09.01.2023, registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC at Women Police Station, Solan, District Solan, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:11461 2. It has been asserted that matter has been compromised between the parties. The informant and petitioner No.1 agreed to part ways and agreed to withdraw the cases filed against each other. The petitioner filed a petition for seeking divorce by way of mutual consent before learned Family Court at Solan, H.P. Hence, the petition. 3. Statement of informant was recorded on 05.03.2025, wherein she stated that she had entered into compromise with the accused voluntarily without any influence from any person. She and her husband had decided to part ways by filing a petition for divorce before Principal Judge, Family Court, Solan, H.P.. She did not want to peruse the matter in view of the compromise. She has no objection; in case the FIR lodged against the petitioners/accused is ordered to be quashed based on the compromise. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 5. In the present matter, the F.I.R. was registered for the commission of offence an punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. The Court had already quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC in Gian Singh versus State, 2012 (10) SCC 303, Narender versus State of Punjab, 2014 (16) SCC 466, Vikas 3 2025:HHC:11461 Singh vs. State of H.P. (2023)I DMC 335 (HP) and Sanjay Kumar vs. State of H.P 2023 (1) Him L.R. 602 based on the compromise. These judgments are binding on this Court. 6. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and F.I.R. No. 01 of 2023, dated 09.01.2023, registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC. at Woman Police Station Solan, District Solan, H.P. is quashed and consequent proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioners- accused in pursuance thereto are also quashed. 7. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. 8. Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this judgment, downloaded from the webpage of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist on the production of a certified copy but if required, may verify passing of the order from Website of the High Court. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 30th April, 2025. (ravinder) 4 2025:HHC:11461