2025:HHC:19712 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. :  443 of 2025 Decided on   :  24.06.2025 Ashok Kumar …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  : Petitioner   in   person   with   Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the respondents  : Mr. Mohinder   Zharaick,   Additional Advocate   General   for   respondents No.1. Respondents No.2 and 3 in person with Mr. Gambhir Singh Chauhan, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral). Petitioner­Ashok   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.29/2019, dated 26.03.2019 (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:19712 with Police Station, Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 336, 337 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 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, Rohru, District Shimla, 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 respondents No.2 and 3. 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   report under   Section   173(2)   Cr.PC,   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   respondents   No.2   and   3. The   terms   and 3 2025:HHC:19712 conditions   of   the   compromise   have   been   reduced   into writing, vide compromise deed, Annexure P­2. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Respondent No.2, who, at one point of time, has put the criminal machinery into motion, appeared before this Court and has deposed that she does not know, as to who has fired the gun. She has also deposed that the petitioner   is   her   relative   and   she   had   entered   into   the compromise   with   the   petitioner,   out   of   her   free   will, consent and without any pressure. 4 2025:HHC:19712 9. Respondent No.2, has also admitted her thumb impression on the Compromise Deed, Annexure P­2. She, in   unequivocal   terms,   has   deposed   that   she   has   no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for. 10. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner and respondent No.3, 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, she initially had levelled the allegations against the petitioner, however, when appeared before this Court, she has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations, by stating that she does not know, as to who had fired the gun shot. 16. 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. 17. When   the   parties,   have   buried   all   their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide Compromise Deed Annexure P­2, then, permitting the proceedings to 5 2025:HHC:19712 continue   against   the   petitioner,   would   be   nothing,   but, abuse of the process of law. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. Moreover,   this   Court   is   satisfied   with   the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P­2, entered into between the parties. 21. Considering   all   these   facts,   the   petition   is allowed   and   FIR   No.29   of   2019,   dated   26.03.2019, registered with Police Station, Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 336 and 337 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act,  as well as, the proceedings resultant 6 2025:HHC:19712 thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 22. The Compromise Deed, Annexure P­2, and the statements of the parties, recorded in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 23. Pending   miscellaneous   applications,   if   any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge June 24, 2025(ps)