A compromise between parties can lead to quashing of FIRs in criminal cases, especially when the complainant exonerates the accused, preventing abuse of legal process.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Petitioner-Manoj Kumar has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.119/2023, dated 09.05.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Haroli, District Una, H.P., under Sections 354A(1)(i) & 354D(i) 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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, 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.2.

3. According to the petitioner, on the statement 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 final report in the learned trial Court. When the matter was pending before the learned trial Court, the petitioner has filed 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 and in order to maintain their future cordial relations, he has compromised the matter with respondent No.2.

6. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which have been placed on record, by filing Cr.MP No.1357 of 2025. The compromise deed is Annexure P-X.

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-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.

9. Respondent No.2, 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 and under the pressure of employees union, 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 Annexure P-X. 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.2, 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 Annexure P-X, 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.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. More