Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On : 21.08.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another on 21 August, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
2025:HHC:28395
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 640 of 2025
.
Decided on : 21.08.2025
Raj Kumar Saini ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Another ...Respondents
Coram
For the petitioner :
r to
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
Petitioner in person with Mr. Shashi
Bhushan, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Tejsavi Sharma & Mr. H.S.
Rawat, Additional Advocates
General with Ms. Ranjna Patial,
Deputy Advocate General, for
respondent No.1.
Respondent No.2, in person with Mr.
Shivang Chandel, Advocate.
Virender Singh, Judge (oral).
PetitionerRaj Kumar Saini has filed the present
petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'), for
quashing of FIR No.73/2024, dated 17.05.2024
(hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 2025:HHC:28395
with Police Station, Kala Amb, District Sirmaur, H.P.,
under Sections 354A(1)(i), 354A(1)(ii) & 354D of the Indian
.
Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC'), as well as,
the proceedings resultant thereto, if any.
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, on the statement of
respondent No.2, the FIR, in question, has been registered
against him. After registration of the FIR, the police has
started the investigation.
4. According to the petitioner, during the
pendency of the investigation, the matter has been
compromised between him and respondent No.2. The
terms and conditions of the compromise have been
reduced into writing, vide compromise deed Annexure P2.
5. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has
been made that the FIR, in question, as well as,
proceedings resultant thereto, if any, be quashed, by
allowing the petition.
3 2025:HHC:28395
6. When put to notice, respondent No.1State has
filed the status report, mentioning therein, that
.
complainant/respondent No.2, has made a complaint
against the petitioner, disclosing therein, that the
petitioner being plant head, is insisting her time and again
to do wrong act with him and also asked her to meet
outside. The complainant has also alleged in the
complaint that the petitioner had caught hold of her hand,
when she was alone and he used to harass her. Thereafter,
the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of
respondent No.2, and the police is investigating the matter.
7. Respondent No.2, who, at one point of time, had
put the criminal machinery into motion, appeared before
this Court and has deposed that due to some
misunderstanding, she had lodged the FIR, in question.
She has also deposed that now, she has compromised the
matter with the petitioner, out of her free will, consent and
without any pressure. 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.
4 2025:HHC:28395
8. Similar type of statement has also been made
by the petitioner, on oath.
.
9. Heard.
10. In this case, the criminal machinery was put
into motion, by respondent No.2, by lodging the FIR, in
question, who initially had levelled the allegations against
the petitioner, however, when appeared before this Court,
she has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations.
11. Once, the person, who had put the criminal
machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioner from
the allegations, the chances of success of prosecution case
against the petitioner are not so bright.
12. 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.
13. 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
5 2025:HHC:28395
petitioners, as well as, respondent No.2 to live peacefully in
the society.
.
14. Even otherwise, acceptance of the compromise,
by this Court, will save the precious judicial time of the
Court, in which, the final report would be filed and that
Court would be in a position to devote such time for the
decision of some other serious matters, pending before it.
15. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the
genuineness of the compromise Annexure P2, entered into
between the parties.
16. Considering all these facts, the petition is
allowed and FIR No.73 of 2024, dated 17.05.2024,
registered with Police Station, Kala Amb, District Sirmaur,
H.P., under Sections 354A(1)(i), 354A(1)(ii) and 354D of
the IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto,
pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be
quashed.
17. The compromise deed, Annexure P2, and the
statements of the parties, recorded today, in the Court,
shall form part of the judgment.
6 2025:HHC:28395
18. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
.
( Virender Singh )
Judge
August 21, 2025(ps)
r to
