2025:HHC:20203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 314 of 2025 Decided on  : 27.06.2025 Hari Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh,  Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner     :  Petitioner in person with Ms. Suhani Gautam, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with   Mr. H.S.   Rawat,   Additional Advocate   General   for   respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 in person with Ms. Kalaunta Devi, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral). Petitioner   Hari   Singh   has  filed   the   present petition,   under   Section   528   of   the   Bharatiya   Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita  (hereinafter referred to  as ‘BNSS’),  for quashing   of   FIR   No.71   of   2003,   dated   23.05.2003 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:20203 with  Police Station, Rohru, District  Shimla, H.P., under Sections   363   and   366­A   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 Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). 2. The relief of quashing has been sought, on the basis of the compromise, which has taken place between the petitioner and respondent No.2. 3. According to the petitioner, at the instance of father of respondent No.2, who is now no more on the land of living, the FIR, in question, has been registered against him. 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. According   to   the   petitioner,   during   the pendency of the aforesaid case, he has compromised the matter with respondent No.2. 3 2025:HHC:20203 6. The  terms and  conditions  of  the compromise have   been   reduced   into   writing,   vide   compromise   deed, Annexure P­2. 7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been   made   that   the   FIR,   in   question,   as   well   as, proceedings, resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial   Court,   may   kindly   be   quashed   and   set   aside,   by allowing the petition. 8. When put to notice, respondent No.1­State has filed   the   status   report,   mentioning   therein   the circumstances, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of father of respondent No.2, as well as, the manner, in which, the investigation has been conducted, by the police, in this case. 9. Respondent No.2, when, appeared before this Court, has stated that she has compromised the matter with   the   petitioner,   out   of   her   free   will,   consent   and without any pressure. She has also deposed that she had gone with the petitioner, voluntarily and she is residing happily with the petitioner in the matrimonial home. She has also deposed that they have been blessed with three 4 2025:HHC:20203 children. She   has   also   admitted   her   signature   on Annexure P­2. She, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that she has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for. 10. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner, on oath. 11. Heard. 12. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by the father of respondent No.2, who is now, no more on the land of living. When, respondent No.2, while appearing before this Court, has deposed that she had   gone   with   the   petitioner   at   her   own   will   and   had solemnized marriage  with  the petitioner, the chances of success of prosecution case against the petitioner are not so bright. 13. When   the   parties,   have   buried   all   their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise Annexure P­2, then, permitting the proceedings to continue against   the   petitioner,   would   be   nothing,   but,   abuse   of process of law. 5 2025:HHC:20203 14. Moreover,   the   parties   are   not   strangers,   but, husband and wife. They both are living together happily, in the matrimonial home, as husband and wife. 15. The   primary   purpose   of   law   is   to   maintain peace   and   harmony   in   the   society. Acceptance   of   the petition,   would   also   give   another   opportunity   to   the petitioner, as well as, respondent No.2 to live peacefully in the society. 16. On the other hand, if the petition is allowed, it will not only save the precious relationship of husband and wife between petitioner and respondent No.2, but, will also 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. 17. Moreover,   this   Court   is   satisfied   with   the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P­2, entered into between the parties. 18. Considering   all   these   facts,   the   petition   is allowed   and   FIR   No.71   of   2003,   dated   23.05.2003, registered with Police Station, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., 6 2025:HHC:20203 under Sections 363, and 366­A of the IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 19. The compromise deed, Annexure P­2, and the statements of the parties, recorded in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 20. Pending   miscellaneous   applications,   if   any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge June 27, 2025(ps)