Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1012 (HP)

Dinesh Kumar Kaushal v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-05-14

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. 1. 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.46 of 2023, dated 06.12.2023, (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Women Police Station, Una, District Una, H.P. under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 and 406 of 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, District Una, 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 parties. 3. According to the petitioners, the marriage of petitioner No.3 was solemnized with respondent No.2, as per Hindu rites and rituals, on 21.05.2023. Thereafter, some matrimonial dispute has arisen between petitioner No.3 and respondent No.2. Subsequently, respondent No.2 has lodged the FIR, in question, against the petitioners. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that after registration of FIR, the police has investigated the matter and the final report, under Section 173(2) of CrPC, has been submitted, which is pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 5. It is the further case of the petitioners that thereafter, a petition, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, was filed, before the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge-III, Family Court, Una, District Una, H.P., for dissolution of the marriage of petitioner No.3 and respondent No.2, by decree of divorce by way of mutual consent. The said petition was allowed by the learned Additional Principal Judge-III, Family Court, Una, District Una, vide judgment dated 19.03.2025. 6. According to the petitioners, thereafter, the matter has been compromised between both the parties, vide Annexure P-3. 7. 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. 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. 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. Today, respondent No.2-complainant has made a statement, on oath, (through video conferencing) that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner No.3 on 21.05.2023. After the marriage, due to non-compatibility of temperament, it was not possible for her to live in the matrimonial home with her husband (petitioner No.3) and due to all these facts, she lodged the FIR, in question, against the petitioners. 10. As per further deposition of respondent No.2, petitioner No.3 had filed the petition, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of her marriage with petitioner No.3, by way of decree of divorce, before the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge-II, Family Court, Una, District Una, H.P. The said petition was allowed, vide judgment dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure-P-4). 11. Respondent No.2 has further deposed that her marriage with petitioner No.3 has now been dissolved and the matter has been compromised between her and the petitioners, as such, she does not want to proceed further with the FIR, in question. 12. Apart from this, respondent No.2 has also shown her voluntariness and willingness to enter into the compromise with the petitioners, by stating that she has entered into the compromise with the petitioners voluntarily and without any influence from any person. 13. In addition to this, respondent No.2 has made no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR, in question, as well as, the resultant proceedings, thereto, are quashed. 14. Today i.e. on 14.05.2025, similar statements of the petitioners (through video conferencing) have also been recorded, on oath. 15. Heard. 16. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.2, by lodging the FIR, in question, against the petitioners, however, when, appeared before this Court, she has exonerated the petitioners from the allegations, as levelled, in this case. 17. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioners from the allegations, by stating, on oath, that the matter has been compromised between them, in such situation, the chances of success of prosecution case, against the petitioners, are not so bright. 18. 17. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioners from the allegations, by stating, on oath, that the matter has been compromised between them, in such situation, the chances of success of prosecution case, against the petitioners, are not so bright. 18. When, the parties admittedly have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide Annexure P-3, then, permitting the proceedings to continue, would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law. 19. 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. 20. 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. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise (Annexure P-3), entered into between the parties. 21. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.46 of 2023, dated 06.12.2023, registered with Women Police Station, Una, District Una, H.P. under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 and 406 of the IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, against the petitioners, are ordered to be quashed. 22. The compromise, Annexure P-3, and the statements of the parties, recorded today in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 23. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.