A compromise between parties can justify quashing an FIR when the complainant exonerates the accused, promoting societal harmony and preventing abuse of legal processes.

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.18 of 2022, dated 11.02.2022, (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P., under Sections 452, 354 and 354A 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 1st Class, Court No.2, 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, effected between the parties.

3. According to the petitioner, respondent No.2 has lodged the FIR in question against him, alleging therein that on 11.02.2022, while respondent No.2 was working in kitchen at around 12 noon, the petitioner came inside the kitchen and started teasing her.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that it has also been alleged in the FIR in question that he has also tried to outrage the modesty of respondent No.2 and at that time, nobody was inside the house. Thereafter, petitioner ran away from the spot and husband & brother-in-law of respondent No.2 went in search of petitioner to his house, but, could not find him there. Subsequently, the FIR in question has been lodged against him.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that after registration of FIR, the police has investigated the matter and the final report, under Section 173(2) of CrPC, has been submitted, which is pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court.

6. It is the case of the petitioners that during the pendency of the case, the parties have entered into the compromise with the intervention of the respectables of the society and the terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, vide Compromise Deed Annexure P-3.

7. 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.

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. The petitioner has impleaded the complainant, as respondent No.2.

10. Today, i.e. on 03.03.2025, respondent No.2- complainant appeared before the Court and deposed, on oath, that on her complaint, FIR in question has been registered against the petitioner.

11. Apart from this, respondent No.2 has also deposed that since, she and the petitioner are neighbours, as such, with the intervention of the respectables of the society and in order to maintain cordial relations, between them, the matter has been compromised, between the parties, vide Compromise Deed Annexure P-3.

12. Besides this, respondent No.2 has also shown her voluntariness and willingness to enter into the compromise with the petitioner, by stating that she is making the statement out of her free will and without any pressure.

13. In addition to this, respondent No.2 has made no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR, in question, as well as, the resultant proceedings, thereto, are quashed.

14. Today i.e. on 03.03.2025, similar statement of the petitioner has also been recorded, on oath.

15. Heard.

16. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, at the instance of respondent No.2, by lodging the FIR, in question, against the petitioner. However, when, she, appeared before this Court, has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations, as levelled, in this case.

17. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioner from the allegatio