Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 274 (HP)

Banku Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-03-04

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT: Virender Singh, J. Petitioner-Banku Ram has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.51/2024, dated 16.05.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., under Sections 323, 324, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to bepending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur, 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 petitioner and respondents No.2. 3. According to the petitioner, on the statement of husband of respondent No.2, the FIR, in question, has been registered against him. 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 petitioner, during the pendency of the aforesaid case, in order to maintain their future cordial relations and to live peacefully in the matrimonial home, he has compromised the matter with respondent No.2. 6. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, vide compromise deed, Annexure P-3. 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, respondent No.1 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. The person, who, at one point of time, had put the criminal machinery into motion, by lodging the FIR, in question, by levelling allegations, as mentioned in it, now has settled the matter with the petitioner, vide compromise Annexure P-3. 10. Respondent No.2, while appearing before this Court, has deposed that due to compelling circumstances, she had lodged the FIR, in question, against the petitioner. 10. Respondent No.2, while appearing before this Court, has deposed that due to compelling circumstances, she had lodged the FIR, in question, against the petitioner. After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the final report, which is pending before the learned trial Court. 11. Respondent No.2, has further deposed that now, during the pendency of the trial, the matter has been settled between her and the petitioner. Now, she is residing happily with the petitioner, in the matrimonial home. She has specifically stated that she has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed as prayed for. 12. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioners, on oath. 13. Heard. 14. The petitioner and respondent No.2, are not stranger, but, husband and wife. However, compelled by the circumstances, respondent No.2, had lodged the FIR, in question, against the petitioner, in which, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the final report, which is pending before the learned trial Court. 15. When, the matter was pending before the learned trial Court, the petitioner has regretted for his act and assured respondent No.2 that such incident will not be repeated in future, by tendering unconditional apology. Now, the petitioner and respondent No.2, are residing happily in the matrimonial home. 16. Not only this, as per the categoric stand taken by respondent No.2, they have entered into the compromise, the terms and conditions of which have been reduced into writing, vide compromise deed Annexure P-3. 17. The primary purpose of the law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society. When, petitioner and respondent No.2, have now started residing together, in the matrimonial home, after settling all the disputes, then, the sincere efforts, which they had made, must be recognized by the Court, by accepting the present petition, as prayed for. 18. Even otherwise, if respondent No.2, is compelled to pursue the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, pending before the learned trial Court, it would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law and it would also adversely affect the matrimonial life of petitioner and respondent No.2 19. 18. Even otherwise, if respondent No.2, is compelled to pursue the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, pending before the learned trial Court, it would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law and it would also adversely affect the matrimonial life of petitioner and respondent No.2 19. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that in case, the present petition is allowed, it will not only save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, but, it will also save the valuable relations between the parties i.e. petitioner and respondent No.2. The time, which, the learned trial Court, would have devoted for the decision of this case, may be devoted for deciding some other serious matter. 20. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.51/2024, dated 16.05.2024, registered with Police Station, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., under Sections 323, 324 and 506 of the IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 21. The compromise Annexure P-3 and the statements of the parties, recorded today, shall form part of the judgment. 22. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.