2025:HHC:18109 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.484 of 2025 Decided on : 06.06.2025 Saurabh Jamwal & 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 petitioners : Petitioners in person with Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Respondents No.2 and 3 in person with Mr. Sujay Mokta, 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:18109 No.90/2017, dated 14.04.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in issue), registered with Police Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., under Sections 341, 353, 332, 504, 506 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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, 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. 3. As per the case, set up by the petitioners, on the statement of respondent No.3, FIR in question had lodged against them on the allegations that on 14.04.2017, bus bearing No.HP69-A-1489 was coming from Ludhiana to Bilaspur and at around 05:45 pm, car bearing No.HP23- B-3082 came from behind and overtook the bus, driven by injured Darshan Pal (respondent No.2). 4. According to the petitioners, as per the complaint, submitted by respondent No.3, due to the said scuffle, respondents No.2 and 3 had sustained injuries and 3 2025:HHC:18109 subsequently, on the statement of respondents No.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, after registration of the FIR in issue, 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, pending before the learned trial Court. 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 respondent No.3, as well as, the manner, in which, the investigation has been conducted, by the police, in this case. 4 2025:HHC:18109 9. The complainant, who has put the criminal machinery into motion, in this case, has been arrayed as respondent No.3 and the injured has been arrayed as respondent No.2. 10. Today i.e. 06.06.2025, respondents No.2 and 3/ injured and complainant, appeared before this Court and deposed, on oath, that on the basis of the statement of respondent No.3, FIR, in issue, has been lodged against the petitioners. 11. Respondents No.2 and 3/injured and complainant have further deposed that on 14.04.2017, respondent No.2 was deputed as Driver, whereas, respondent No.3 was posted as Conductor, in Bus No.HP69-1489 and on that day, a scuffle had taken place, between respondent No.2 and the petitioners. 12. Respondents No.2 and 3 have further deposed that during the pendency of the case, before the learned trial Court and in view of the fact that they and petitioners are from same area, the matter has been compromised between them, vide Compromise Deed Annexure P-2. Respondent No.3 has also sworn his affidavit as Ex.PA. The compromise has been effected, in order to maintain their 5 2025:HHC:18109 future cordial relations and to live peacefully in the society. They have also deposed that in view of the compromise and the said Affidavit, they have no objection, if the present petition is allowed, as prayed for. 13. In addition to this, respondent No.2 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. 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 respondent No.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, as, they are from same area, vide Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2. 6 2025:HHC:18109 17. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioners from the allegations, by stating, on oath, that they are from same area and in order to 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 and Affidavit Ex.PA, 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 7 2025:HHC:18109 a position to devote for the decision of some other serious matters, pending before it. 21. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise, Annexure P-2, entered into between the petitioners and respondent No.2 and the Affidavit Ex.PA, duly sworn by respondent No.3. 22. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.90/2017, dated 14.04.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in issue), registered with Police Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., under Sections 341, 353, 332, 504, 506 and 34 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, Affidavit Ex.PA 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 06, 2025 (Gaurav Thakur)