1( 2025:HHC:17172 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.194 of 2025 Reserved on: 28.05.2025 Date of Decision: 02.06.2025 Gaurav Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Advocate, vice Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma & Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Virender Singh, Judge Petitioner-Gaurav Kumar 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.65 of 2024, dated 01.05.2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2( 2025:HHC:17172 IPC’) with Police Station, Kala Amb, District Sirmaur, H.P.,as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, if any. 2. In the petition, the victim, as well as, her father have been impleaded, as respondents No.3 and 2, respectively. 3. According to the petitioner, on the basis of statement, made by respondent No.2, FIR in question, has been registered against him. 4. It has been averred in the petition that as per the complainant, respondent No.2 got recorded that his eldest daughter, who, as per respondent No.2, studying in 10+2, had not returned back from the school and on the basis of the above facts, respondent No.2 has apprehended that respondent No.3 has been kidnapped by someone, as such, he has prayed that the action may be taken, upon which, the police has registered the FIR in question. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that after registration of the FIR, in question, before the police could take any effective steps, respondent No.3 came back to her home and disclosed that on the day, before 01.05.2024, she voluntarily had gone to Kala Amb, Bus Stand, from where, she had boarded the bus to Bilaspur, District Yamunanagar and at 3( 2025:HHC:17172 Bilaspur, she met the petitioner, who was previously known to her, from where, they had gone to Panchmukhi Temple and stayed in a hotel and thereafter, the petitioner dropped her back at Kala Amb. 6. It is further case of the petitioner that although, nothing has been disclosed by respondent No.3, but he was apprehending his arrest. As such, according to him, he had moved the application for bail, which was allowed with a direction to join the investigation, as and when directed by the IO to do so. Thereafter, a compromise Annexure P-2, has been arrived at between respondent No.2 and the petitioner, in order to maintain their peaceful and cordial relations. According to the petitioner, the misunderstanding of respondent No.2, on account of the fact that his daughter has not come back, after attending the school, has also been cleared now. 7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the petition by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto. 8. When, put to notice, the State has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 01.05.2024, respondent No.2 moved a complaint, before the police, mentioning therein, that 4( 2025:HHC:17172 he is an agriculturist by profession, having two children. Respondent No.3 is his elder daughter, who is studying in 10+2, in Govt. School ‘X’ (name withheld). On 01.05.2024, she had gone to school, but did not return back. When, her whereabouts were enquired, it came to the notice of the complainant that respondent No.3 had not attended the school and left, without disclosing to anyone and it had been apprehended that someone had taken away her. He has further got recorded that efforts to trace respondent No.3 were made, but, she was not found. As such, a prayer has been made to take action, upon which, the police registered the case. 9. On 02.05.2024, respondent No.3 voluntarily came back and disclosed that she had gone to meet petitioner at Bilaspur (Yamunanagar). Thereafter, she was medico legally examined. Her statement, under Section 164 of Cr.PC., was got recorded by producing her, before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, on 03.05.2025, in which, she has got recorded that from Kala Amb, she had gone to Bilaspur, in a bus and at Bilaspur, Bus Stand, petitioner met her. The petitioner and respondent No.3 were in talking terms with each other from the year 2024. She had stayed one night 5( 2025:HHC:17172 with petitioner at a hotel and next day, Gaurav Kumar(petitioner), brought her to Kala Amb. Thereafter, respondent No.3 was produced before the Counsellor, where respondent No.3 had not disclosed any sexual activities with her. Neither, this fact, as per the status report was proved from the statement of respondent No.3, nor, she had disclosed that she was enticed away by the petitioner. However, as per the record, collected by the police, date of birth of respondent No.3 was found to be 28.10.2007. 10. Lastly, it has been submitted in the status report that matter has to be enquired from the accused-petitioner. 11. On 15.05.2025, respondent No.2 (complainant) had made a statement, on oath, disclosing therein, that he had lodged the missing report and FIR No.65 of 2024 was registered, due to misunderstanding. According to respondent No.2, during the pendency of the investigation, matter has been compromised, between him and the petitioner. He has duly proved his signatures over the compromise, Annexure P- 2. 12. Not only this, he has also deposed, on oath, with regard to his voluntariness about the compromise, Annexure 6( 2025:HHC:17172 P-2 and submitted that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed, as prayed for. 13. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which has been annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-2. 14. Similar statement has also been made by respondent No.3 (victim) and stated that she has no objection, if the petition is allowed, in view of the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No.2. 15. Petitioner-Gaurav Kumar has also made the similar statement, on oath. 16. In view of the above stand, the material question, which arises for determination, before this Court is as to whether on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No.2, Annexure P-2, FIR in question can be quashed or not. 17. Considering the fact that in the opening line of his statement, on oath, made by respondent No.2 before this Court, he has categorically stated that due to some misunderstanding, he had lodged the FIR in question. Moreover, he has also deposed about the compromise, which had taken place between the petitioner and respondent No.2. 7( 2025:HHC:17172 Respondent No.3, on oath has stated that she has no objection, if the present petition is allowed. 18. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that when the star witnesses of the prosecution i.e. the complainant, as well as, the victim, on oath, have stated with regard to the compromise and respondent No.2 has stated that due to some misunderstanding, he had lodged the FIR, coupled with the fact that the respondent No.3 came back voluntarily and not alleged anything against the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the chances of the success of the prosecution case against the petitioner are not so bright. 19. The petitioner cannot be compelled to face the trial, when the person, who had lodged the FIR in question, has stated, on oath, that the FIR in question, was lodged on account of misunderstanding and in view of no objection made by the victim, if the petitioner, is forced to face the trial, it would be nothing, but, the abuse of the process of law. 20. Even otherwise, acceptance of the petition will also save the precious judicial time of the Court, in which, the charge sheet would be filed, after the completion of the investigation. 8( 2025:HHC:17172 21. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.65 of 2024, dated 01.05.2024, registered under Section 363 of IPC, with Police Station, Kala Amb, District Kangra, H.P., as well as, the resultant proceedings thereto, if any, are ordered to be quashed. 22. The Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2, and the statements of the parties, recorded before this Court, shall form part of the judgment. 23. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (Virender Singh) Judge June 02, 2025 (subhash)