IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No. : 1068 of 2025 Decided on : 04.12.2025

Vibhour Bhardwaj & Others H …Petitioners

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Another …Respondents

Coram

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

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the petitioner : Mr. Servedaman Rathore, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional

Advocate General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma & Ms. Avni Kochhar Mehta, Deputy Advocates General, for

respondent No.1.

h Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate,

for respondent No.2.

Virender Singh, Judge (oral)

Petitioners have filed the present petition, under

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.81 of 2022, dated 24.12.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Renukaji, District Sirmaur, H.P., under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

(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’). f

2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the basis of the compromise efftected between the parties.

3. According to the petitioners, on the statement of respondent No.2, the FIR, in question, has been registered against them.

4. After registration of the FIR, in question, the pholice has conducted the investigation and submitted the gcharge-sheet, which is now pending adjudication before the ilearned trial Court.

5. According to the petitioners, during the pendency of the case, they and respondent No.2, have compromised, the matter.

6. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which are annexed with the petition, as, Annexure P-2.

7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made that the FIR, 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, althoufgh, the State has not filed the status report, however, the petitioners have enclosed the copy of tthe FIR, which reveals that complainant (respondent No.2) has made a complaint to the police, mentioning therein, that she was married to petitioner No.1 and after her marriage, her husband and in-laws used to maltreat her, by giving her beatings, on the phretext of bringing less dowry. On the complaint of the gcomplainant (respondent No.2), the FIR in question has ibeen registered against the petitioners.

9. The person, who, at one point of time, had levelled the allegations against the petitioners, and had lodged the FIR, in question, appeared, before this Court and made a statement, on oath, that due to some misunderstanding, undue haste and without realizing its implications, she had lodged the FIR, in question, against the petitioners.

10. Respondent No.2, has further deposed that now, she had given a rethought to the matter and decided not to pursue the FIR-complaint and the proceedings resultant thereto. She has also deposed that now, she is residing happily with her husband afnd in-laws peacefully. She has also deposed that she is not interested to pursue the FIR, in question, and thte proceedings resultant thereto. 11. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioners, on oath.

12. Heard.

13. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and rhespondent No.2, is stated to have taken place in the year g2021. However, compelled by the circumstances, it seems ithat due to some misunderstanding, respondent No.2, had lodged the FIR, in question, against the petitioners, in which, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the final report, which is now pending before the learned trial Court.

14. The efforts made by the petitioners have resulted i