1 ( 2025:HHC:18120 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.465 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.06.2025 Ajay Deep Singh. …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Arush Matlotia, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State Respondent No.2, in person with Mr. Devender Sharma, 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.154 of 2016, dated 15.10.2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’), with Police Station, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:18120 ) the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’). 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 have 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, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, 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. Cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court and the matter is stated to be pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 3 ( 2025:HHC:18120 ) 7. Today, respondent No.2, who, had put criminal machinery into motion, has appeared in Court and has 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. According to him, the petitioner is his son and now has mend his behaviour. 8. Lastly, respondent No.2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he does not want to proceed further with the matter, in order to maintain cordial relations between them. He has also stated that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question and the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 9. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner. 10. Heard. 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 had put the criminal machinery into motion, by lodging FIR in question, when, appeared before this 4 ( 2025:HHC:18120 ) Court, has stated that the compromise has been effected between the parties. Respondent No.2 has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations, by deposing that due to some misunderstanding, FIR in question has been lodged. 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, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 14. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace in the society and when, the the petitioner and respondent No.2, have buried their disputes and compromised the matter, then, the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of the FIR in question, lodged by respondent No.2, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law. Moreover, the petitioner and respondent No.2 are not stranger but real father and son. 15. Acceptance of the compromise will help them to live peacefully in the society and also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, as the learned trial Court will be in a 5 ( 2025:HHC:18120 ) position to devote such time, for deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it. 16. When, respondent No.2 has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations, in that eventuality, chances of success of the prosecution case, against the petitioner, is not so bright, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive. 17. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending adjudication before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 18. The statements, so recorded, and the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, be read as part of the judgment. 19. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge June 04, 2025 (subhash)