2025:HHC:26337 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 303 of 2025 Decided on  : 04.08.2025 Naresh Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh,  Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners  :   Petitioner   in   person   with   Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate. For the respondents  : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr. H.S. Rawat, Mr. Varun   Chandel,   Additional Advocates  General   with   Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 in person with Mr. Rohit, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral). Petitioner­Naresh Kumar has  filed the present petition,   under   Section   528   of   the   Bharatiya   Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for   quashing   of   FIR   No.5   of   2024,   dated   15.01.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:26337 with   Police   Station,   Hatli,   District   Mandi,   H.P.,   under Sections 452 and 323 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, Court No.2, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, 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 petitioner and respondent No.2. 3. According to the petitioner, on the statement  of respondent No.2, the FIR, in question, has been registered against him. 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   petitioner,   during   the pendency of the aforesaid case, he has compromised the matter with respondent No.2, in order to live peacefully in the society and to maintain their future cordial relations. 3 2025:HHC:26337 6. The  terms and  conditions  of  the compromise have   been   reduced   into   writing,   vide   compromise   deed, Ex.PX. 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, disclosing therein that respondent No.2­Chander Kant, lodged a case mentioning therein that on 15.01.2024, when, he was taking rest in his house, at about 11.15 a.m., petitioner, having Drat (big sickle), in his hand, trespassed the house and inflicted drat blow upon him, due to which, he received injuries upon his head and hands. 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 now, he has compromised the matter with the petitioners, out of his free will, consent and   without   any   pressure. He   has   also   admitted   his 4 2025:HHC:26337 signatures   on   Ex.P­X.     He,   in   unequivocal   terms,   has deposed that he has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for. 10. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner, on oath. 11. Heard. 12. 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 petitioner, however, when appeared before this Court, he has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations. 13. Once,   the   person,   who   had   put   the   criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations, the chances of success of prosecution case against the petitioner are not so bright. 14. When   the   parties,   have   buried   all   their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise Ex.P­X,   then,   permitting   the   proceedings   to   continue against   the   petitioner,   would   be   nothing,   but,   abuse   of process of law. 15. The   primary   purpose   of   law   is   to   maintain peace   and   harmony   in   the   society. Acceptance   of   the 5 2025:HHC:26337 petition,   would   also   give   another   opportunity   to   the petitioner, as well as, respondent No.2 to live peacefully in the society. 16. 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. 17. Moreover,   this   Court   is   satisfied   with   the genuineness   of   the   compromise   Ex. P­X,   entered   into between the parties. 18. Considering   all   these   facts,   the   petition   is allowed and FIR No.5 of 2024, dated 15.01.2024, registered with   Police   Station,   Hatli,   District   Mandi,   H.P.,   under Sections   452   and   323   of   the   IPC,  as   well   as,   the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 19. The   compromise   deed,   Ex.P­X,   and   the statements of the parties, recorded in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 6 2025:HHC:26337 20. Pending   miscellaneous   applications,   if   any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge August 04, 2025(ps)