Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On : 01.07.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 1 July, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
2025:HHC:20828
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.:537 of 2025
.
Decided on : 01.07.2025
Rewa Dass & Another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioners : Petitioners in person with Mr.
Hitesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General
with Ms. Ranjna Patiala, Deputy
Advocate General for respondent
No.1.
Respondents No.2 and 3 in person
with Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate.
Virender Singh, Judge (oral).
Petitioners have filed the present petition, under
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'), for quashing of FIR
No.61/2023, dated 01.04.2023 (hereinafter referred to as
the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Dhalli,
District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 506, 323 and 34 of
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 2025:HHC:20828
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 Judicial
Magistrate First Class-V, Shimla, 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 petitioners and respondents No.2 and 3.
3. According to the petitioners, on the statement
of respondent No.2, the FIR, in question, has been
registered against them.
4. After registration of the FIR, the police has
conducted the investigation and submitted the report
under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, which is now pending
adjudication before the learned trial Court.
5. According to the petitioners, during the
pendency of the aforesaid case, in order to maintain their
future cordial relations and to live peacefully in the society,
they have compromised the matter with respondents No.2
and 3.
3 2025:HHC:20828
6. The terms and conditions of the compromise
have been reduced into writing, vide compromise deed,
.
Annexure P-2.
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, qua the
petitioners, by allowing the petition.
8. When put to notice, respondent No.1-State has
filed the status report, mentioning therein the
circumstances, in which, the FIR, in question, has been
registered, at the instance 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, who, at one point of time,
had put the criminal machinery into motion, appeared
before this Court and has stated that she, as well as,
respondent No.3, and the petitioners are beighbourers, as
such, in order to maintain their cordial relations and in
order to live peacefully in the society, the matter has been
settled between them, vide compromise Annexure P-2.
4 2025:HHC:20828
She, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that she has no
objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for.
.
10. Respondent No.2 has further deposed that
petitioner Rewa Dass had also lodged FIR No.65 of 2023,
dated 09.04.2023, under Section 448, 504, 506, 201 and
Section 34 of the IPC, against her and her brother, with
Police Station, Dhalli, which is also pending before the
learned trial Court.
11. Similar type of statement has also been made
by the petitioners, as well as, respondent No.3, on oath.
12. Heard.
13. 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 petitioners, however, when appeared before this Court,
has exonerated the petitioners from the allegations.
14. Once, the person, who had put the criminal
machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioners
from the allegations, the chances of success of prosecution
case against the petitioners are not so bright.
5 2025:HHC:20828
15. When the parties, have buried all their
disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise
.
Annexure P-2, then, permitting the proceedings to continue
against the petitioners, would be nothing, but, abuse of
process of law.
16. 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
petitioners, as well as, respondents No.2 and 3 to live
peacefully in the society.
17. Even otherwise, acceptance of the compromise,
by this Court, will 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.
18. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the
genuineness of the compromise Annexure P-2, entered into
between the parties.
19. Considering all these facts, the petition is
allowed and FIR No.61 of 2023, dated 01.04.2023,
registered with Police Station, Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P.,
6 2025:HHC:20828
under Sections 506, 323, and 34 of the IPC, as well as, the
proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned
.
trial Court, are ordered to be quashed.
20. The compromise deed, Annexure P-2, and the
statements of the parties, recorded in the Court, shall form
part of the judgment.
21. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
( Virender Singh )
Judge
July 01, 2025(ps)
