1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 380 of 2025 Decided on : 29.5.2025 Ashish Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & anr. …Respondents ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Skandh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents :Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Respondent No. 2 in person with Mr.Vivek Thakur, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) The petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.) for quashing of FIR No. 33 of 2025, dated 8.3.2025, registered under Section 281 of Bharatiya Nyaya 2 Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNS’) and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), with Police Station, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. 2. Relief, as claimed for, has been sought on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 in order to maintain their cordial relations. 3. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which has been annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-2. 4. On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, has been made. 5. When put to notice, respondent No. 1 has filed the status report, disclosing therein, the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and criminal machinery swung into motion. 6. It is the further case of respondent No. 1 that after completion of investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. has been filed. Investigation in the 3 matter is almost complete, however, charge sheet has not been filed. 7. Today, respondent No. 2, who, has put criminal machinery into motion, has appeared before this Court and made a statement, on oath, about the manner, in which, he has lodged the FIR in question and factum of the compromise, which has been effected, between the parties, in order to maintain cordial relations, between him, and the petitioner. 8. Lastly, respondent No. 2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he does not want to proceed further with the matter, as, the parties want to live in peace and harmony in future. He has also stated that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question is quashed. 9. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner. The petitioner has deposed that he was neither rash nor negligent while driving the vehicle in question, but the accident had taken place due to error of judgment. 10. Heard. 4 11. From the facts, as mentioned in the petition, as well as, the factual position, as narrated in the status report, this Court is of the view that the matter has now been compromised, between the parties. 12. The person, who has put the criminal machinery into motion, by lodging FIR in question, when, appeared before this Court, has stated that the compromise has been effected between the parties. Lastly, he has submitted that he has no objection, in case the present petition is allowed. 13. In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, which bears the signatures of petitioner and respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 does not want to proceed further with the case and has specifically stated that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question, is quashed. 14. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace in the society and when, the parties to the lis, i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 2, have buried their disputes and compromised the matter, then, the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of 5 the FIR in question, lodged by respondent No. 2, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law. 15. Acceptance of the compromise will help the parties to live peacefully in the society and also save the precious time of the Police, and the Police will be in a position to devote such time, for investigating some other serious disputes, pending before it. 16. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR in question, is quashed. 18. The statements, so recorded, and the compromise, Annexure P-2, be read as part of the judgment. 19. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge May 29, 2025 Kalpana