Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
( 2025:HHC:14096 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 273 of 2025 Decided on : 14.05.2025 Karam Chand & Another …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Bhisham Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. H.S.
Rawat,
Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1. Mr. Suneet Verma, 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.03/2021, dated 20.02.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Bagga, District Solan, H.P., under Sections 451, 323, 504 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2025:HHC:14096 ) and 506, read with Section 34 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’). 2. The relief of quashing has been sought, on the basis of the compromise, which has taken place between the petitioners and respondent No.2. 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, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the final report, which is now pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. 5. According to the petitioners, during the pendency of the aforesaid case, with the intervention of the respectables of the society, they have compromised the matter with respondent No.2. 3 ( 2025:HHC:14096 )
6. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, vide compromise deed, Annexure P1. 7. 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. 8.
When put to notice, respondent No.1State 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. Respondent No.2, who, at one point of time, has put the criminal machinery into motion, appeared before this Court and has stated that since, he, respondent No.3 and the petitioners are residents of the same village, he has compromised the matter. He has also deposed that the compromise has been effected in order to live peacefully and to maintain their future cordial relations. 4 ( 2025:HHC:14096 )
10. Respondent No.2, has also deposed that he has compromised the matter, out of his free will, consent and without any pressure. He has also admitted his signature on Annexure P1. He, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for. 11. Similar type of statements have also been made by the petitioners and respondent No.3, on oath. 12. Heard. 13. 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, and respondent No.3, who had sustained injuries in the incident, however, when appeared before this Court, have exonerated the petitioners from the allegations. 14. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, and the person who had sustained injuries in the incident, have exonerated the petitioners from the allegations, the chances of success of prosecution case against the petitioners are not so bright. 5 ( 2025:HHC:14096 )
15. When the parties, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise Annexure P1, then, permitting the proceedings to continue against the petitioners, would be nothing, but, abuse of process of law. 16. 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, respondents No.2 and 3 to live peacefully in the society. 17. 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. 18. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P1, entered into between the parties. 19. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.03 of 2021, dated 20.02.2021, registered with Police Station, Bagga, District Solan, H.P.,
6 ( 2025:HHC:14096 ) under Sections 451, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 20. The compromise deed, Annexure P1, and the statements of the parties, recorded in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 21. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge May 14, 2025(ps)