IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.883 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.11.2025 Deepak Kunddu & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …..Respondents Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi and Ms.

Divya Rajta, Advocates.

For the Respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to

3/State.

Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

Virender Singh, Judge (Oral)

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.17 of 2021, dated 03.08.2021, (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Women Police Station, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., under Sections 498A, 406, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto,

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H..P.

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’).

2. The relief of quashing has beeHn sought on the basis of the compromise, effected between the parties.

3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.1 is the husband of complainant/respondent No.4 and petitioners No.2 to 4 are the mother in law, brother in law and sister in law of respondent No.4. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4 solemnized marriage on 04.06.2020. After some time of marriage, due to differences in thoughts, opinion and non- compatibility, both of them could not live together, as husband and wife and are living separately for more than four years.

gThey are unable to live together, as husband and wife, despite ivarious efforts made by their elders and relatives.

4. According to the petitioners, the marriage of petitioner No.1 was solemnized with respondent No.4, on 04.06.2020. Thereafter, some matrimonial dispute had arisen between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4, and subsequently, respondent No.4 had lodged the FIR, in question, against the petitioners.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that after registration of FIR, the police had investigated the matter and the f.inal report, under Section 173(2) of CrPC, was submitted, which is pending adjudication, before the learned trial HCourt.

6. It is the further case of the petitioners that thereafter, joint petition, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, was filed, before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., for dissolution of the marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4.

7. According to the petitioners, now, the matter has been compromised between the parties, vide Compromise Deed, Annexure P-4.

g8. On the basis of the said compromise, a prayer has ibeen made to allow the petition, by quashing the FIR, in question, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court.

9. When, put to notice, respondents No.1 to 3-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.4, as well as, the manner, in which, the investigation has been conducted, by the police, in this case. .

10. Today, respondent No.4-Reena Singh, has put appearance before this Court and made a sHtatement, that the marriage was solemnized between respondent No.4 and petitioner No.1 on 04.06.2020. However, after the marriage, due to non-compatibility of temperament, it was not possible for her to live in the matrimonial home with her husband (petitioner No.1) and due to all these facts, she had lodged the FIR, in question, against the petitioners.

11. As per further deposition of respondent No.4, thereafter, a joint petition, under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, h