2025:HHC:17285 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 428 of 2025 Decided on  : 02.06.2025 Jaspinder Singh & Another …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh,  Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners  :   Petitioners   in   person   with   Mr. Sanjeev   Kuthiala,   Senior   Advocate assisted by Mr. Abhishek, Advocate. For the respondents  : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1. Virender Singh, Judge (oral). Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter   referred   to  as   ‘BNSS’),  for   quashing   of   FIR No.191/2024, dated 30.11.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the   FIR,   in   question),   registered   with   Police   Station, Manali,  H.P.,  under  Sections  115(2),  126(2),  118(1)  and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:17285 as the ‘BNS’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manali, District Kullu, 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 petitioners. 3. According to the petitioners, on the statement of petitioner No.2, the FIR, in question, has been registered against petitioner No.1. 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   petitioners,   during   the pendency of the aforesaid case, with the intervention of the common friends and the relatives, they have compromised the matter. 6. The  terms and  conditions  of  the compromise have   been   reduced   into   writing,   vide   compromise   deed, Annexure P­2. 3 2025:HHC:17285 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, respondent­State has filed the status report, mentioning therein the circumstances, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance   of   petitioner   No.2,   as   well   as,   the   manner,   in which, the investigation has been conducted, by the police, in this case. 9. Petitioner 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 petitioner No.1, out of his free will, consent and   without   any   pressure. He   has   also   admitted   his signatures on Annexure P­2. 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 No.1, on oath. 4 2025:HHC:17285 11. Heard. 12. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into   motion,   by   petitioner   No.2,   by   lodging   the   FIR,   in question, who initially had levelled the allegations against petitioner No.1, however, when appeared before this Court, he has exonerated petitioner No.1 from the allegations. 13. Once,   the   person,   who   had   put   the   criminal machinery   into   motion,  has  exonerated   petitioner   No.1 from the allegations, the chances of success of prosecution case against petitioner No.1 are not so bright. 14. When   the   parties,   have   buried   all   their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise Annexure P­2, then, permitting the proceedings to continue against petitioner No.1, 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 petition,   would   also   give   another   opportunity   to   the petitioners to live peacefully in the society. 16. Even otherwise, acceptance of the compromise, by this Court, will save the precious judicial time of the 5 2025:HHC:17285 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 Annexure P­2, entered into between the parties. 18. Considering   all   these   facts,   the   petition   is allowed   and   FIR   No.191   of   2024,   dated   30.11.2024, registered with Police Station, Manali, District Kullu, H.P., under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 118(1) and 238 of the BNS, as   well   as,   the   proceedings   resultant   thereto,   pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 19. The compromise deed, Annexure P­2, and the statements of the parties, recorded in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 20. Pending   miscellaneous   applications,   if   any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge June 02, 2025(ps)