1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 198 of 2025 Decided on : 11.4.025 Trilok Chand …Petitioner Versus State of H.P.& anr. …Respondents ______________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ______________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents :Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Addl. A.G., for respondent No. 1. Ms. Shivani Tehta, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) seeking quashing of FIR No. 14 of 2018, 2 dated 14.8.2018, registered under Sections 498-A and 325 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’ with Women Police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-1, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in view of the compromise, having been effected, between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. 2. According to the petitioner, after registration of the FIR, the criminal machinery swung into motion. After completion of the investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. was submitted in the trial Court. 3. Now, with the intervention of the respectables of the society, the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. In pursuance of the 3 compromise, respondent No. 2 is now residing with the petitioner, in her matrimonial home. 4. On the basis of said positive development, a prayer has been made to allow the present petition, as prayed for. 5. When put to notice, respondent-State has filed the status report, disclosing therein the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and the Police has investigated the matter and submitted report under Section 173(2) Cr. P.C., before the learned trial Court. 6. Today, the person, who, at one point of time, had levelled the allegations, against the petitioner, i.e. respondent No. 2, appeared and stated, on oath, that the FIR was lodged by her due to mis-understanding. But, now the matter has been compromised between her and the petitioner, and in pursuance of the said compromise, she has started residing with petitioner No. 1, in her matrimonial home. 4 7. On the basis of above, she has stated that she does not want to proceed further and prayed that she has no objection, in case the petition is allowed. 8. Similar type of statement has been made by the petitioner, in which, he has asserted about the compromise, as well as, the fact that respondent No. 2 is now residing with him, in the matrimonial house. 9. Heard. 10. Considering the fact that respondent No. 2, who, at one point of time, had lodged the FIR under Sections 498-A and 325 IPC, against the petitioner, has now settled the matter with the petitioner and has started residing with her husband, in the matrimonial home. The efforts, which have been made by the petitioner, as well as, respondent No. 2, to compromise the matter, vide compromise deed Annexure P-2, must get recognition from the Court, as primary purpose 5 of the law is to maintain peace and harmony, in the society. 11. Acceptance of the compromise would encourage the parties to live peacefully in the society and the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of the FIR in question, lodged by respondent No. 2, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law. 12. 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. 13. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 14 of 2018, dated 14.8.2018, registered under Sections 498- A and 325 of the IPC, with Women Police Station, Dharamshala, H.P., and the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 6 14. The statements, so recorded, before this Court, as well as, compromise Annexure P-2, shall form part of the judgment. 15. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge April 11, 2025 Kalpana