Pushpender Singh Chauhan and Anr. Vs State of Hp and Anr.

2025:HHC:37808

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No.	: 947 of 2025
Decided on	: 10.11.2025
Pushpender Singh Chauhan & Another	…Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Another	…Respondents

¶4

Coram

¶5

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

For the petitioner : Petitioners in person with Mr. Shreyak Sharda, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1. Respondent No.2, in person with Ms. Sneha Kaushal, Advocate.

¶7

Virender Singh, Judge (oral).

¶8

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.61/2025, dated 20.08.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 69,

¶9

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

¶10

2

¶11

2025:HHC:37808

¶12

352(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’) and Section 67 of the Information and Technology Act (hereinafter referred to as the IT Act), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, if any.

¶13

The relief of quashing has been sought, on the basis of the compromise, which has taken place between the petitioners and respondent No.2.

¶14

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

¶15

After registration of the FIR, the police has started the investigation. During investigation, the matter has been compromised between the petitioners and respondent No.2.

¶16

The terms and conditions of the compromise

¶17

have been reduced into writing, vide compromise deed Annexure P-2.

¶18

On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made that the FIR, in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, if any.

¶19

3

¶20

2025:HHC:37808

¶21

When put to notice, respondent No.1-State has filed the status report, mentioning therein, that respondent No.2, has made a complaint, stating therein that during the year 2023-2024, the petitioner was her neighbour and serving in CISF and after some time, they became friends. Thereafter, petitioner No.1, offered her to marry him and started harassing her sexually, on the promise of marriage. Thereafter, the petitioners had posted her nude photographs on social media/facebook. This act of the petitioners, has tarnished her image, in the society. They are also threatened her to do away her life. As such, she had lodged the FIR, in question.

¶22

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, she had lodged the FIR, in question. She has also deposed that now, she has compromised the matter with the petitioners, voluntarily and without any pressure. She has also admitted her signatures on Annexure P-2. She, in unequivocal terms, has deposed

¶23

4

¶24

2025:HHC:37808

¶25

that she has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for.

¶26

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

¶27

Heard.

¶28

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 petitioners, however, when appeared before this Court, she has submitted that the matter has been compromised with the petitioners.

¶29

Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioners from the allegations, the chances of success of prosecution case against the petitioners are not so bright.

¶30

When the parties, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise Annexure P-2, then, permitting the proceedings to continue against the petitioners, would be nothing, but, abuse of process of law.

¶31

5

¶32

2025:HHC:37808

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P-2, entered into between the parties.

¶36

Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.61 of 2025, dated 20.08.2025, registered with Police Station, Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 69, 352(2) of the BNSS and Section 67 of the IT Act, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, if any, are ordered to be quashed.

¶37

6

¶38

2025:HHC:37808

¶39