1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 133 of 2025 Decided on : 19.3.2025 Raj Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & anr. …Respondents ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Mr. Kunal Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents :Ms. Ranjna Patial, Dy. A.G., for respondent No. 1. Mr. Ram Lal Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) The petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.) for quashing of FIR No. 72 of 2022, dated 2.9.2022, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 354 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2 IPC’) with Police Station, Rajgarh, District Sirmour, HP, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, stated to be pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’). 2. Relief, as claimed for, has been sought on the ground that due to some mis-understanding between the petitioner and respondent No.2, FIR in question has been lodged against the petitioner. After registration of the FIR, Police has conducted investigation in the matter and filed charge sheet against the petitioner, which is stated to be pending in the learned trial Court. 3. It is also the case of the parties that now the matter has been compromised, in pursuance of compromise, Annexure P-2, as the parties are residents of the same village and want to maintain their cordial relations, in future. 3 4. On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, has been made. 5. When put to notice, respondents-State has filed status report, disclosing therein the factual position, about the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and criminal machinery swung into motion. 6. It is the further case of respondents- State that after completion of investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. has been filed, which is pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 7. The person who has put criminal machinery into motion, by making statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C., before the Police, i.e. respondent No. 2 has appeared in Court today and has made a statement, on oath, about the manner, in which, she has lodged the FIR in question and factum of the compromise, which has been effected, between the parties, in order 4 to maintain cordial relations between her and the petitioner, as they are residents of the same village. 8. Lastly, respondent No. 2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that she does not want to proceed further with the matter. 9. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner, on oath. 10. Heard. 11. Complainant/respondent No. 2 has categorically stated, in her statement, on oath, that the compromise has been effected between the parties, in order to maintain their cordial relations, in future. 12. In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, which bears the signatures of petitioner and respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 does not want to proceed further with the case and has no objection, in case, the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed and the present petition is allowed. 5 13. Moreover, when, the parties have settled the dispute with regard to FIR in question, then the compromise, which has been entered into between the parties, annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2, should be honoured by this Court, as no useful purpose would be served, by keeping the proceedings alive. 14. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace in the society and when, the parties to the lis, i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 2, have buried all their disputes and compromised the matter, 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. 15. Acceptance of the compromise would also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, as, the learned trial Court would be in a position to devote such time, for deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it. 6 16. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR in question, as well as, proceedings consequent thereto, pending adjudication before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 17. The statements of the parties and the compromise, Annexure P-2, be read as part of the judgment. 18. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge March 19, 2025 Kalpana