2025:HHC:18376 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.455 of 2025 Decided on : 17.06.2025 Udaar Rattan & Anr. …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Petitioners in person with Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Varun Chandel, Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General for respondents No.1 to 3. Respondent No.4 in person with Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:18376 No.155/2021, dated 29.10.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P., under Sections 325, 504, 506, 201 and 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, Court No.2, Amb, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). 2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the basis of the compromise, effected between the parties. 3. According to the petitioners, FIR in question was registered on the basis of the statement, made by respondent No.4 and after registration of the FIR, police has submitted the challan, which is pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. 4. It has been averred in the petition that with the intervention of the respectables of the society and in order to maintain future cordial relations, the matter has amicably been settled between the parties, as, both the parties are residing in the same vicinity of the area. The 3 2025:HHC:18376 Compromise Deed, executed on 24.12.2024, is Annexure P-2. 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, pending before the learned trial Court. 6. When, put to notice, respondents No.1 to 3- State have filed the status report, mentioning therein, the circumstances, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.4, as well as, the manner, in which, the investigation has been conducted, by the police, in this case and thereafter, submitted the final report before the learned trial Court. 7. The petitioner has impleaded the complainant, as respondent No.4, in this case. 8. Today i.e. on 17.06.2025, respondent No.4- complainant, who had lodged the FIR, in question, appeared before the Court and deposed, on oath, that he and the petitioners are neighbours. However, due to some trivial matter, a quarrel had taken place, between them and thereafter, on his statement, the FIR, in question, has 4 2025:HHC:18376 been registered, against the petitioners. He has also deposed that since, the petitioners are his neighbours, as such, with the intervention of the respectables of the society and in order to maintain their future cordial relations, the matter has been compromised, between the parties, vide Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2. 8.1. Apart from this, respondent No.4 has also shown his voluntariness and willingness to enter into the compromise with the petitioners, by stating that the compromise has been effected out of his free will, consent and without any pressure. 8.2. In addition to this, respondent No.2 has made no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR, in question, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, are quashed. 9. Today, similar joint statement of the petitioner has also been recorded, on oath. 10. Heard. 11. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.4, by lodging the FIR, in question, against the petitioners, however, when, appeared 5 2025:HHC:18376 before this Court, he has exonerated the petitioners from the allegations, as levelled, in this case. 12. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioners from the allegations, by stating, on oath, that the matter has been compromised between them, in such situation, the chances of success of prosecution case, against the petitioners, are not so bright. 13. When, the parties, who admittedly are neighbours, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide Compromise Deed Annexure P-2, then, permitting the proceedings to continue would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law. 14. 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, respondent No.4 to live peacefully in the society. 15. 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 6 2025:HHC:18376 a position to devote for the decision of some other serious matters, pending before it. 16. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2, entered into between the parties, as, the petitioners and respondent No.2, are neighbours. 17. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.155/2021, dated 29.10.2021, registered with Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P., under Sections 325, 504, 506, 201 and 34 of IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 18. The Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2, and the statements of the parties, shall form part of the judgment. 19. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge June 17, 2025 (Gaurav Thakur)