Prem Chand Vs State of Hp and Ors.

2025:HHC:33874

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No. : 828 of 2025 Decided on : 06.10.2025 Prem Chand …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others …Respondents

¶4

Coram

¶5

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

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the petitioner : Petitioner in person with Ms. Shikha Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Respondent No.3, in person with Ms. Heena Chauhan, Advocate.

¶8

Virender Singh, Judge (oral).

¶9

PetitionerPrem Chand has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.20/2021, dated 04.06.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Kunihar, District Solan, H.P., under

¶10

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

¶11

2

¶12

2025:HHC:33874

¶13

Section 354 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, Arki, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’).

¶14

The relief of quashing has been sought, on the basis of the compromise, which has taken place between the petitioner and respondent No.3.

¶15

According to the petitioner, on the statement of respondent No.3, the FIR, in question, has been registered against him.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.3.

¶18

3

¶19

2025:HHC:33874

¶20

The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, vide compromise deed Annexure P2.

¶21

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.

¶22

When put to notice, respondents No.1 and 2 State have filed the status report, mentioning therein, that she, after the death of her mother, her father had performed second marriage. Since, they are not maintaining her properly, as such, she had initially resided with her maternal uncle ( Mama ), for about four years. Thereafter, for the last about six months, she had went to the house of her maternal aunt ( Mausi ) and started living there. On 03.06.2021, she had gone to her native village Sai to see her ailing uncle ( Tayaji ) with her maternal uncle ( Mausa ), and while returning back, her maternal uncle ( Mausa ), had outraged her modesty. As such, she had lodged the FIR, in question.

¶23

4

¶24

2025:HHC:33874

¶25

Respondent No.3, who, at one point of time, had

¶26

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 Annexure P2. She, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that she has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for.

¶27

Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner, on oath.

¶28

Heard.

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

5

¶32

2025:HHC:33874

¶33

the allegations, the chances of success of prosecution case against the petitioner are not so bright.

¶34

When the parties, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise Annexure P2, then, permitting the proceedings to continue against the petitioner, would be nothing, but, abuse of process of law.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P2, entered into between the parties.

¶38

6 2025:HHC:33874

¶39

Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.20 of 2021, dated 04.06.2021, registered with Police Station, Kunihar, District Solan, H.P., under Section 354 of the IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed.

¶40

The compromise deed, Annexure P2, and the statements of the parties, recorded today, in the Court, shall form part of the judgment.

¶41

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

¶42

( Virender Singh ) Judge

¶43

October 06, 2025 (ps)

Prem Chand v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Chand v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Diksha Vs the State of Hp and Others

Balak Ram Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Surinder Kumar Vs State

Vinay Bhatia Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Darshan Singh Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. Vs Mohd. Vajid