( 2025:HHC:13966 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. : 330 of 2025 Decided on  :  09.05.2025 Kuldeep Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh,  Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Dhanwanti, Advocate. For the respondents   : Mr. Ranjna   Patial,   Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Ms. Kritika Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Virender Singh, Judge (oral). Petitioner­Kuldeep   Sharma,   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.56   of   2025,   dated 04.04.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Boileauganj, District Shimla, H.P., under Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2025:HHC:13966 ) (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   ‘BNS’),  as   well   as,   the proceedings resultant thereto, if any. 2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties. 3. According to the petitioner, on the complaint of respondent No.2, the FIR, in question, has been registered against him. 4. After   registration   of   the   FIR,   the   police   has started the investigation. According to the petitioner, now, he has compromised the matter with respondents No.2 and 3. The Compromise Deed is Annexure P­2. 5. On the basis of the said compromise, a prayer has been made to allow  the petition, as prayed for, by quashing   the   FIR,   in   question,   as   well   as,   proceedings resultant thereto, if any. 6. When put to notice, respondent No.1­State has filed the status report, mentioning therein the manner, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.2,  and the manner, in which, the police is investigating the matter. 3 ( 2025:HHC:13966 ) 7. The petitioner has impleaded the complainant, as respondent No.2 and his wife as respondent No.3, in the present case 8. Respondent No.2­complainant, today, appeared before   the   Court   and   deposed,   on   oath,   that   on   his statement, the FIR, in question, has been lodged against the petitioner. He has also admitted his signatures on the Compromise Deed Annexure P­2. 9. Apart   from   this,   respondent   No.2   has   also deposed that in view of the compromise, having been taken place between him and the petitioner, he has no objection, if the present petition is allowed, as prayed for. 10. In addition to this, respondent No.2 has also shown his voluntariness and willingness to enter into the compromise   with   the   petitioner,   by   stating   that   the compromise has been effected out of his free will, consent and without any pressure. 11. Similar type of statement has been made by the petitioner and respondent No.3, on oath. 12. Heard. 4 ( 2025:HHC:13966 ) 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 of rash and negligent driving against the petitioner, however, when appeared before this Court, he has submitted that he had entered into a compromise with the petitioner. 14. Once,   the   person,   who   had   put   the   criminal machinery into motion, has compromised the matter with the petitioner, in such situation, the chances of success of prosecution case against the petitioner are not so bright. 15. When   the   parties,   have   buried   all   their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise Annexure   P­2,   then,   permitting   the   investigation proceedings to continue against the petitioner, 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 petitioner,   as   well   as,   respondents   No.2   and   3   to   live peacefully in the society. 5 ( 2025:HHC:13966 ) 17. Even otherwise, acceptance of the compromise, by this Court, will save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, before whom, the charge­sheet will be filed, 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 P­2, entered into between the parties. 19. Considering   all   these   facts,   the   petition   is allowed   and   FIR   No.56   of   2025,   dated   04.04.2025, registered with Police Station, Boileauganj, District Shimla, H.P.,   under   Sections   281   of   the   BNS,  as   well   as,   the proceedings  resultant   thereto,   if   any,  are   ordered  to   be quashed. 20. The compromise deed, Annexure P­2, 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 ) May 09, 2025(ps) Judge