Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 987 (HP)

Dilshad v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-05-13

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.21/2020, dated 13.07.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Women Police Station, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., under Sections 498-A, 354, 506 and 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, Nahan, District Sirmaur, 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.4. 3. According to the petitioners, petitioner No.1 was married to respondent No.4 on 08.04.2019. Petitioner No.2 is the brother of petitioner No.1, whereas, petitioner No.3 is the mother of petitioner No.1. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.4 had lodged the FIR in question due to some misunderstanding, between the parties and according to them, now, the matter has been compromised between the parties, vide compromise Annexure P-2 and respondent No.4 is now residing happily with petitioner No.1 in her matrimonial home. 5. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to quash the FIR, in question, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, by allowing the petition. 6. When put to notice, respondents No.1 to 3 have filed the status report, disclosing therein the manner, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.4, as well as, the manner, in which, the police has conducted the investigation, in this case and submitted the final report, which is pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 7. 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 petitioners, vide compromise Annexure P-2. 8. Respondent No.4, while appearing before this Court, has deposed that she was married to petitioner No.1 on 08.04.2019. Thereafter, she and petitioner No.1 have been blessed with two daughters. 9. 8. Respondent No.4, while appearing before this Court, has deposed that she was married to petitioner No.1 on 08.04.2019. Thereafter, she and petitioner No.1 have been blessed with two daughters. 9. Respondent No.4 has further deposed that due to some misunderstanding, she had lodged FIR, in question, against the petitioners. After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the final report, which is pending before the learned trial Court. 10. Respondent No.4 has further deposed that during the pendency of the case, before the learned trial Court, the dispute between her and petitioners has been settled. Now, she is residing happily with petitioner No.1, in the matrimonial home. She has specifically stated that she has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for. 11. Not only this, respondent No.4 has identified her signatures, over compromise, 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. 12. Today i.e. on 13.05.2025, similar statement of petitioner No.1 and joint statement of petitioners No.2 and3 have also been recorded, on oath. 13. Heard. 14. The marriage, between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4, is stated to have been solemnized on 08.04.2019 and thereafter, both of them have been blessed with two daughters. However, compelled by the circumstances, it seems that due to some misunderstanding, respondent No.4 had lodged the FIR, in question, against the petitioners, in which, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the final report, which is pending before the learned trial Court. 15. With the passage of time, good sense has prevailed upon them and they have compromised the matter, vide compromise Annexure P-2. The said compromise is stated to have been taken place between the parties, during the pendency of the case, before the learned trial Court. 16. The efforts, made by those persons, have resulted in the settlement of the matter and respondent No.4 has now started residing with petitioner No.1, in the matrimonial home. Not only this, as per the categorical stand, taken by respondent No.4, all the disputes, between her and the petitioners, have now been settled and the terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, vide compromise Annexure P-2. 17. Not only this, as per the categorical stand, taken by respondent No.4, all the disputes, between her and the petitioners, have now been settled and the terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, vide compromise Annexure P-2. 17. The primary purpose of the law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society. When, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4 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. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P-2, entered into between the parties. 18. Even otherwise, if, respondent No.4 is compelled to pursue the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, which are 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 No.1 and respondent No.4, as well as, their two daughters. 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, will also save the valuable relations between the parties i.e. petitioners and respondent No.4. The time, which, the learned trial Court, would have devoted for the decision of this case, may be devoted for deciding some other serious matters, pending before it. 20. In view of the discussions, made hereinabove, the petition is allowed and FIR No.21/2020, dated 13.07.2020, registered with Women Police Station, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., under Sections 498-A, 354, 506 and 34 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-2 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.