Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1080 (HP)

Goldy v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-05-20

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. 1. Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.123/2023, dated 15.07.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Kangra, H.P., under Sections 324 and 201, read with Section 34 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 Judicial Magistrate First Class-I, Indora, District Kangra, 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 respondent No.3. 3. According to the petitioners, on the statement of respondent No.3, the FIR, in question, has been registered against them. 4. After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the final report, which is now pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. 5. According to the petitioners, during the pendency of the aforesaid case, with the intervention of the respectables of the society, they have compromised the matter with respondent No.3. 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, by allowing the petition. 8. When put to notice, respondents No.1 and 2-State have filed the status report, mentioning therein the circumstances, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.3, as well as, the manner, in which, the investigation has been conducted, by the police, in this case. 9. Respondent No.3, who, at one point of time, has put the criminal machinery into motion, appeared before this Court and has stated that now, she has compromised the matter with the petitioners, out of her free will, consent and without any pressure. She has also admitted her signature on Annexure P-2. She, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that she has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for. 10. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioners, on oath. 11. Heard. 12. She has also admitted her signature on Annexure P-2. She, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that she has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for. 10. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioners, on oath. 11. Heard. 12. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.3, by lodging the FIR, in question, who initially had levelled the allegations against the petitioners, however, when appeared before this Court, she has exonerated the petitioners from the allegations. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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.3 to live peacefully in the society. 16. 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. 17. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P-2, entered into between the parties. 18. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.123 of 2023, dated 15.07.2023, registered with Police Station, Indora, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 324 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 19. The compromise deed, Annexure P-2, and the statements of the parties, recorded in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 20. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.