1 ( 2025:HHC:7618 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.121 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.03.2025 Gaurav Randhawa & Anr. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & another ..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Petitioners in person with Ms. Anjali Soni Verma. 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 Ms. Shivani Tegta, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.3/2024, dated 30.01.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Women Police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 342 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:7618 ) referred to as the ‘IPC’) as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Kangra, District Kangra, 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 basis of a complaint lodged by respondent No.2, FIR No.3/2024, dated 30.01.2024, was registered under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 342 and 323, IPC, against them. 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 case of the petitioners that respondent No.2 was married to petitioner No.1, however, due to non- compatible temperament, they could not live together. Now, matter with regard to FIR in question, has been compromised between the parties, vide compromise Annexure P-2. 6. On the basis of the said compromise, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, as prayed for, by 3 ( 2025:HHC:7618 ) 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. 8. Keeping in view the pleadings, as well as the stand taken by respondent No. 2, this Court is of the view that petitioner No.1 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 petitioners. 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. 9. Now, with the intervention of the respectables of the society, the petitioners 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 4 ( 2025:HHC:7618 ) 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 No.1 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 questions, 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 petitioners, but, now, she has compromised the matter with the petitioners. 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. 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. 5 ( 2025:HHC:7618 ) 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.3/2024, dated 30.01.2024 registered with Women Police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 342 and 323 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 March 24, 2025 (subhash)