( 2025:HHC:9721 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.248 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.04.2025 Pankaj …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person, with Mr. Y.P. Sood Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State. Respondent No.2 in person, with Mr. Anirudh Sood, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.62/2023, dated 26.02.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Haroli, District Una, H.P., under Section 498-A 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 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:9721 ) Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Una, District Una, 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 petitioner, the marriage of petitioner was solemnized with respondent No.2, as per Hindu rites and rituals, on 02.12.2015 and out of the said wedlock, one daughter namely Yuvika Singh Gill was born. Thereafter, some matrimonial dispute has arisen between petitioner and respondent No.2. Subsequently, respondent No.2 has lodged the FIR, in question, against the petitioner. 4. After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the final report, which is now pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter, a petition, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, was filed, before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Una, District Una, H.P., for dissolution of the marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.2, by decree of divorce by way of mutual consent. The said petition was allowed by the learned ( 2025:HHC:9721 ) Principal Judge, Family Court, Una, District Una, H.P., vide judgment dated 24.02.2025. 6. On the basis of the said compromise, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, as prayed for, by quashing the FIR, in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court. 7. When put to notice, respondent No.1-State has filed the status report, mentioning therein the manner, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.2, as well as, the manner, in which, the investigation has been conducted, by the police, in this case. Petitioner as well as respondent No.2 have also made their statements on oath in which they have reasserted the factual position as involved in the case. 8. Keeping in view the pleadings, as well as the stand taken by the petitioner and respondent No. 2, this Court is of the view that the petitioner and respondent No.2, though married each other, but, compelled by the circumstances, both of them are litigating with each other. Respondent No.2 had lodged the case against the petitioner. The police has conducted investigation and filed report under Section 173(2) Cr. P.C., which is still pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. ( 2025:HHC:9721 ) 9. Now, with the intervention of the respectables of the society, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have settled their inter-se dispute, though, by deciding to part their ways and have entered into the compromise. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing and annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-2. 10. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace in the society and when, the parties to the marriage, i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 2, have decided to part their ways by settling all the inter-se disputes, then, the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of FIR in question, lodged by respondent No.2, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law. 11. No doubt, the criminal machinery has been put into motion by respondent No. 2, by lodging the FIR in question, against the petitioner, but, now, she has compromised the matter with the petitioner. 12. The terms and conditions, which have been agreed upon by the parties, in order to settle all the disputes, should be honoured by this Court, as, no useful purpose would be achieved, by keeping the proceedings alive. ( 2025:HHC:9721 ) 13. Acceptance of the compromise will also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, as, the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote such time for deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it. 14. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise, Annexure P-2, entered into between the parties, as, respondent No.2, while appearing before this Court has categorically stated that she was not under any pressure for entering into the compromise. 15. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.62/2023, dated 26.02.2023, registered with Police Station, Haroli, District Una, H.P., under Section 498-A of IPC, 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 before this Court shall form part of the judgment. 17. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (Virender Singh) Judge April 07, 2025 (subhash)