Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shashank Sharma & Ors vs State Of H.P.& Anr on 15 May, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 302 of 2025
Decided on : 15.5.2025
Shashank Sharma & ors.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P.& anr. ...Respondents
____________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?
____________________________________________________
For the Petitioners : Petitioners in person with
Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate.
For the Respondents :Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Add.
A.G., for respondent No. 1.
Respondent No. 2 in person
with Mr. Sanjeev Kumar
Motta, Advocate.
Virender Singh, Judge (oral)
Petitioners have filed the present petition,
under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'the BNSS') seeking
quashing of FIR No. 21 of 2022, dated 31.12.2022,
registered under Sections 498-A, 354-A, 323 and 506 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, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., (hereinafter referred
to as 'the trial Court'), in view of the compromise, having
been effected, between the petitioners and respondent No.
2.
2. According to the petitioners, FIR in question was
registered against them at the instance of respondent No.
2, due to matrimonial dispute, having been arisen between
petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2.
3. 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.
4. During the pendency of the case, before learned
trial Court, the parties have settled the matter. As per
settlement, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have
decided to part their ways.
5. On the basis of above, a prayer has been made to
allow the present petition.
6. When put to notice, respondent No. 1 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.
7. Today, the person, who, at one point of time, had
levelled the allegations, against the petitioners, i.e.
respondent No. 2, appeared and stated, on oath, that she
was married to petitioner No. 1 and thereafter, dispute had
arisen between them, out of matrimonial discord.
Thereafter, according to her, she had lodged FIR against
the petitioners, in which, police has conducted the
investigation and submitted the report under Section
173(2) of the Cr. P.C., which is pending before the learned
trial Court.
8. According to respondent No. 2, she and petitioner
No. 1 have decided to part their ways, as she and
petitioner No. 1 have filed petition under Section 13-B of
the Hindu Marriage Act, before the Court of learned Addl.
Principal Judge, Family Court, Palampur, District Kangra,
H.P. She has further deposed on oath that since the
matter has been settled between her and petitioner No. 1,
as such, she has no claim whatsoever with regard to past,
present and future maintenance.
9. On the basis of compromise, Annexure P-3, she
has categorically stated that she has no objection, in case
the FIR, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending
before the learned trial Court, are quashed.
10. Similar type of joint statement has also been made
by the petitioners, in which, they have also reiterated the
terms and conditions of the compromise, Annexure P-3.
11. On the basis of joint statement, made by the
petitioners, they have sought relief, as claimed in the
petition.
12. Heard.
13. Parties to the present lis, i.e. petitioner No. 1 and
respondent No. 2 have settled the inter se disputes having
been arisen between them, by dissolving their marriage.
The compromise is Annexure P-3, according to which the
parties have settled all their disputes and bound
themselves by the same. As such, continuation of
proceedings, before the learned trial Court is nothing, but,
the abuse of process of law.
14. When the aggrieved wife, who had put the criminal
machinery into motion, by lodging the FIR, against her
husband (petitioner No. 1), father-in-law (petitioner No. 2),
mother-in-law (petitioner No. 3), sister-in-law (petitioner
No. 4) and brother-in-law (petitioner No. 5) has settled the
matter with the petitioners, that too, by dissolving the
marriage with petitioner No. 1, then, chances of success of
prosecution case, in this case, are not so bright.
15. 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.
16. Considering all these facts, the present petition is
allowed and FIR No. 21 of 2022, dated 31.12.2022,
registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 354-A and 506 of
the IPC, with Women Police Station, Dharamshala, H.P.
and the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the
learned trial Court, are quashed.
17. The statements, so recorded, before this Court, as
well as, compromise Annexure P-3, shall form part of the
judgment.
18. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid
terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also
stands disposed of.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
May 15, 2025
Kalpana
