CRMMO/1059/2026 on 12 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. : 1059 of 2026 Decided on

: 12.10.2026 Rajiv Kumar @ Pindi …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others …Respondents

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Respondent No.3, in person with Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge

(oral). Petitioner­Rajiv Kumar @ Pindi has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.14/2019, dated 04.06.2019 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Women Police Station, Una, District Una, H.P., under 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

Sections 451, 354, 323, 147, 149 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, Court No.II, Amb, District Una, 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 respondent No.3.

3. According to the petitioner, on the statement of respondent No.3, the FIR, in question, has been registered against him, as well as, his co­accused Jagdish Ram, Suresh Kumar, Dalbir Chand, Suman Bala, Mohit Sharma, Sanjeev Kumar.

4. After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the final report in the learned trial Court. When the matter was pending before the learned trial Court, the co­accused of the petitioner had filed Cr.MMO No.997 of 2022, for quashing of the FIR in question. At that time, the petitioner was not in the country. As such, the present petition for quashing of the FIR, in question.

5. According to the petitioner, during the pendency of the present petition, with the intervention of the respectables of the society, he has compromised the matter with respondent No.3.

6. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, vide compromise deed Ex.PA, original of which has been placed on record of Cr.MMO No.997 of 2022.

7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made that the FIR, in question, qua the petitioner, 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, that the complainant had made a statement to the effect that on 2.6.2019, at about 6.45 .p.m., when her brother reached home, his clothes were torn. Upon asking, he has disclosed that he has been beaten by Jagdish Ram, Suresh Kumar,

Sanjeev Kumar son of Roshan Lal and Sanjev Kumar son of Jagdish Ram. In the meanwhile, Jagdish Ram, Suresh Kumar, Rajeev Kumar, Sanjev Kumar, Suman and Dalbir Singh, came there and again given bearing to her brother and when she tried to intervene, they have also given beating to her and also outraged her modesty. As such, she had lodged the FIR, in question.

9. Respondent No.3, who, at one point of time, had put the criminal machinery into motion, appeared before this Court and has deposed that due to some misunderstanding, she had lodged the FIR, in question. She has also deposed that now, she has compromised the matter with the petitioner, out of her free will, consent and without any pressure. She has also admitted her signature on Ex.PA. 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 petitioner, 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 petitioner, however, when appeared before this Court, she has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations.

13. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations, the chances of success of prosecution case against the petitioner are not so bright.

14. When the parties, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise Ex.PA, then, permitting the proceedings to continue against the petitioner, 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 P­2, entered into between the parties.

18. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.14 of 2019, dated 04.06.2019, registered with Women Police Station, Una, District Una, H.P., under Sections 451, 354, 342, 323. 147, 149 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, Ex.PA, and the statements of the parties, recorded today, in the Court, shall form part of the judgment.

20. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.

( Virender Singh ) Judge October 12, 2026(ps)