JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.261/2024, dated 20.11.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 75, 78, 79, 296, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, 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, effected between the petitioner and respondent No.2, who is complainant, in the present case. 3. According to the petitioner, he and respondent No.2 are working in the same office and on 20.11.2024, due to some misunderstanding, FIR in question was registered by respondent No.2 against him. 4. As per the petitioner, now, the parties have amicably resolved the dispute, in order to maintain cordial relations between them. According to him, the terms and conditions have been reduced into writing vide compromise Annexure P-2. 5. 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. 6. 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 and submitted the charge-sheet, which is pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 7. The complainant, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, in this case, has been arrayed as respondent No.2. 8. 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 petitioner, which is pending before the learned trial Court. 8.1. 8. 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 petitioner, which is pending before the learned trial Court. 8.1. 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 petitioner, vide compromise Annexure P-2. 9. Not only this, respondent No.2 has also identified her signatures, over Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2 and also shown her voluntariness and willingness to enter into the compromise with the petitioner, by stating that the compromise has been effected out of her free will, consent and without any pressure. 10. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner, on oath. 11. Heard. 12. 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 petitioner, 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 petitioner by deposing that now, the matter has been compromised between them. 13. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations, by stating, on oath, that now, the matter has been compromised, in such situation, the chances of success of prosecution case, against the petitioner, are very bleak. 14. When, the petitioner, 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. 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 petitioner, as well as, respondent No.2 to live peacefully in the society. 16. 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 petitioner, as well as, respondent No.2 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 petitioner and respondent No.2. 18. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.261/2024, dated 20.11.2024, registered with Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 75, 78, 79, 296, 351(2) of the BNS, 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, shall form part of the judgment. 20. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.