2025:HHC:17404 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.461 of 2025 Decided on : 03.06.2025 Sanjay Verma & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Petitioners in person with Mr. Skandh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocates General for respondent No.1. Respondents No.2 and 3 in person with Mr. Vivek Thakur, 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 No.30/2018, dated 23.03.2018 (hereinafter referred to as 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:17404 the FIR, in issue), registered with Police Station Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., under Sections 341, 323, 147, 149 and 504 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.4, Hamirpur, 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 petitioners and respondents No.2 and 3, who are complainants, in the present case. 3. As per the case, set up by the petitioners, on 23.03.2018, respondents No.2 and 3 had lodged the FIR in question on the allegations that on the same day, at about 02:40 pm, they were wandering near Kala Munch (stage), Sujanpur and thereafter, suddenly, the petitioners came there and blocked the passage of respondents No.2 and 3 and started giving beatings to them, as a result of which, respondents No.2 and 3 fell on the ground and started screaming loudly. 4. According to the petitioners, as per the complaint, submitted by respondents No.2 and 3, due to 3 2025:HHC:17404 the said scuffle, respondents No.2 and 3 had sustained injuries and subsequently, on the statements of respondents No.2 and 3, FIR, in issue, has been registered. 5. It is the further case of the petitioners that after conducting the investigation, police has submitted the charge-sheet, before the learned trial Court, against the petitioners, which is stated to be pending before the learned trial Court. 6. According to the petitioners, since, the incident had occurred due to misunderstanding, between the parties, as such, with the intervention of the respectables of the society, the matter has now been compromised between them. The Compromise Deed has also been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. 7. 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, if any. 8. When, put to notice, respondent No.1-State has filed the status report, mentioning therein, the circumstances, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondents No.2 and 3, as 4 2025:HHC:17404 well as, the manner, in which, the investigation has been conducted, by the police, in this case. 9. The complainants, who have put the criminal machinery into motion, in this case, have been arrayed as respondents No.2 and 3. 10. Today i.e. 03.06.2025, respondents No.2 and 3/ complainants, appeared before this Court and deposed, on oath, that on the basis of their statements, FIR, in issue, has been lodged against the petitioners. 11. Respondents No.2 and 3/complainants have further deposed that in the year 2018, they were the students of Thakur Jagdev Chand Memorial Government College, Tira Sujanpur, H.P. and due to the student politics, a scuffle had taken place, between them and the petitioners. 12. Respondents No.2 and 3 have further deposed that during the pendency of the case, before the learned trial Court, the matter has been compromised with the petitioners vide Compromise Deed Annexure P-2. The compromise has been effected, with the intervention of the respectables of the society and in order to live peacefully in the society. They have also deposed that in view of the 5 2025:HHC:17404 compromise, they have no objection, if the present petition is allowed, as prayed for. 13. In addition to this, respondents No.2 and 3 have also shown their voluntariness and willingness to enter into the compromise with the petitioners, by stating that the compromise has been effected, out of their free will, consent and without any pressure. 14. Similar joint statement has also been made by the petitioners, on oath. 15. Heard. 16. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondents No.2 and 3, by lodging the FIR, in question. However, when, respondents No.2 and 3, appeared before this Court, have categorically deposed that the during the pendency of the case, before the learned trial Court and with the intervention of the respectables of the society, as well as, in order to maintain their future cordial relations, they have compromised the matter with the petitioners, vide Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2. 17. Once, the persons, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, have exonerated the petitioners from the allegations, by stating, on oath, that in order to 6 2025:HHC:17404 live peacefully in the society and with the intervention of the respectables of the society, they have entered into the compromise, in such situation, the chances of success of prosecution case, against the petitioners, are very bleak. 18. When, the petitioners, as well as, respondents No.2 and 3, 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. 19. 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, respondents No.2 and 3 to live peacefully in the society. 20. 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. 7 2025:HHC:17404 21. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise, Annexure P-2, entered into between the petitioners and respondents No.2 and 3. 22. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.30/2018, dated 23.03.2018, registered with Police Station Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., under Sections 341, 323, 147, 149 and 504 of the IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 23. The Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2, and the statements of the parties, shall form part of the judgment. 24. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge June 03, 2025 (Gaurav Thakur)