Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 926 (HP)

Munish Dogra v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-05-06

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIRNo.16/2015, dated 05.05.2015 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P., under Section 67A of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IT Act’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, District Shimla, 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 petitioners and respondent No.2, who is complainant, in the present case. 3. As per the case, set up by the petitioner, respondent No.2 had lodged the FIR in question alleging therein that she was studying in GSSS, Gumma and the petitioner was doing ITI from ABVGIT. 3.1. According to the complaint, made by respondent No.2, she and petitioner No.1 introduced with each other and had started talking on phone. In the month of December, 2014, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had made physical relations on 1-2 occasions. Thereafter, respondent No.2 came to know through her uncle Gulzar that petitioner No.1 has made her MMS, when they had made physical relations. Subsequently, on such allegations, FIR in question was registered against petitioner No.1. 3.2. As per the petitioners, after registration of the FIR in question, police had conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet, which is now pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 3.3. According to the petitioners, now, with the intervention of the respectables of the society, the parties have amicably settled the matter. According to them, the terms and conditions have been reduced into writing vide compromise Annexure P-2. 4. 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. 5. According to them, the terms and conditions have been reduced into writing vide compromise Annexure P-2. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. The complainant, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, in this case, has been arrayed as respondent No.2. 7. 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 petitioners, which is pending before the learned trial Court. 7.1. 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 petitioners, vide compromise Annexure P-2. 8. 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 petitioners, by stating that the compromise has been effected out of her free will, consent and without any pressure. 9. Similar type of joint statement has also been made by the petitioners, on oath. 10. Heard. 11. 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 petitioners, 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 petitioners by deposing that now, the matter has been compromised between us. 12. Meaning thereby, respondent No.2 will be the star witness of the prosecution to depose against the petitioners, 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 petitioners by deposing that now, the matter has been compromised between us. 12. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioners 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 petitioners, are very bleak. 13. When, the petitioners, 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise, Annexure P-2, entered into between the petitioners and respondent No.2. 17. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.16/2015, dated 05.05.2015, registered with Police Station Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P., under Section 67A of the IT Act, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 18. The Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2 and the statements of the parties, shall form part of the judgment. 19. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.