Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On : 06.05.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr on 6 May, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
2025:HHC:12702
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.323 of 2025
Decided on : 06.05.2025
Munish Dogra & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioners : Petitioners in person with Mr.
R.S. Chandel, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and 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. Sunil Kumar,
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
1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 2025:HHC:12702
No.16/2015, dated 05.05.2015 (hereinafter referred to as
the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station
Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P., under Section 67A of the
Information and Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred
to as the 'IT Act'), as well as, the proceedings resultant
thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog,
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, effected between the petitioners
and respondent No.2, who is complainant, in the present
case.
3. As per the case, set up by the petitioner,
respondent No.2 had lodged the FIR in question alleging
therein that she was studying in GSSS, Gumma and the
petitioner was doing ITI from ABVGIT.
3.1. According to the complaint, made by
respondent No.2, she and petitioner No.1 introduced with
each other and had started talking on phone. In the month
of December, 2014, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2
had made physical relations on 1-2 occasions. Thereafter,
3 2025:HHC:12702
respondent No.2 came to know through her uncle Gulzar
that petitioner No.1 has made her MMS, when they had
made physical relations. Subsequently, on such
allegations, FIR in question was registered against
petitioner No.1.
3.2. As per the petitioners, after registration of the
FIR in question, police had conducted the investigation and
submitted the charge-sheet, which is now pending
adjudication, before the learned trial Court.
3.3. According to the petitioners, now, with the
intervention of the respectables of the society, the parties
have amicably settled the matter. According to them, the
terms and conditions have been reduced into writing vide
compromise Annexure P-2.
4. On the basis of the said compromise, a prayer
has been made to allow the petition, as prayed for, by
quashing the FIR, in question, as well as, proceedings
resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court.
5. 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,
4 2025:HHC:12702
the manner, in which, the investigation has been
conducted, by the police, in this case and submitted the
charge-sheet, which is pending adjudication, before the
learned trial Court.
6. The complainant, who had put the criminal
machinery into motion, in this case, has been arrayed as
respondent No.2.
7. Today i.e. on 06.05.2025, respondent No.2-
complainant, appeared before the Court and deposed, on
oath, that on the basis of her statement, FIR, in question,
was lodged and after registration of the FIR, police had
conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-
sheet, against the petitioners, which is pending before the
learned trial Court.
7.1. Respondent No.2 has further deposed that
during the pendency of the case, before the learned trial
Court, with the intervention of the respectables of the
society and in order to maintain future cordial relations,
the matter has been compromised between her and the
petitioners, vide compromise Annexure P-2.
8. Not only this, respondent No.2 has also
identified her signatures, over Compromise Deed,
5 2025:HHC:12702
Annexure P-2 and also shown her voluntariness and
willingness to enter into the compromise with the
petitioners, by stating that the compromise has been
effected out of her free will, consent and without any
pressure.
9. Similar type of joint statement has also been
made by the petitioners, on oath.
10. Heard.
11. In this case, the criminal machinery was put
into motion, by respondent No.2, by lodging the FIR, in
question. Meaning thereby, respondent No.2 will be the
star witness of the prosecution to depose against the
petitioners, before the learned trial Court. However,
respondent No.2, when appeared, before this Court, has
made statement, on oath and has supported the case of
the petitioners by deposing that now, the matter has been
compromised between us.
12. Once, the person, who had put the criminal
machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioners
from the allegations, by stating, on oath, that now, the
matter has been compromised, in such situation, the
6 2025:HHC:12702
chances of success of prosecution case, against the
petitioners, are very bleak.
13. When, the petitioners, as well as, respondent
No.2, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the
matter, vide Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2, then,
permitting the proceedings to continue, would be nothing,
but, abuse of the process of law.
14. 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, respondent No.2 to live peacefully in
the society.
15. 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.
16. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the
genuineness of the compromise, Annexure P-2, entered
into between the petitioners and respondent No.2.
17. Considering all these facts, the petition is
allowed and FIR No.16/2015, dated 05.05.2015, registered
7 2025:HHC:12702
with Police Station Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P., under
Section 67A of the IT Act, as well as, the proceedings
resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court,
are ordered to be quashed.
18. The Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2 and the
statements of the parties, shall form part of the judgment.
19. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,
shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
( Virender Singh )
Judge
May 06, 2025
(Gaurav Thakur)
