2025:HHC:18337 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.473 of 2025 Decided on : 16.06.2025 Sahil Chauhan …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Sameer Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Respondents No.2 to 4 in person with Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner has 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:18337 No.15/2025, dated 09.02.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 281, 125(a) and 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, if any. 2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the basis of the compromise, effected between the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 4, who are complainant and injured, in the accident in question. 3. As per the case, set up by the petitioner, on 09.02.2025 at around 05:30 pm, an accident had taken place, involving vehicle No.HP10-B-1272, being driven by the petitioner. In the said accident, respondents No.3 and 4 had sustained injuries and on the statement of respondent No.2, FIR, in question, was registered. 4. According to the petitioner, with the intervention of the respectables of the society and in order to maintain cordial relations in the parties, the matter has now been compromised between him and respondents No.2 to 4. The Compromise Deed is Annexure P-2. 3 2025:HHC:18337 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, if any. 6. 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.2, as well as, the manner, in which, the investigation has been conducted, by the police, in this case. 7. The complainant, who has put the criminal machinery into motion, in this case, has been arrayed as respondent No.2. The petitioner has also impleaded the injured, as respondents No.3 and 4, in this case. 8. Today, respondent No.2-complainant, appeared before the Court and deposed, on oath, that on 09.02.2025, in his presence, an accident had taken place by the vehicle, being driven by the petitioner and respondents No.3 and 4 were also there in the said vehicle and they had sustained injuries. 8.1. Respondent No.2 has further deposed that thereafter, on the basis of his statement, FIR, in question, 4 2025:HHC:18337 was lodged against the petitioner and after registration of the FIR, police has conducted the investigation. 8.2. Respondent No.2 has categorically deposed that in the said accident, petitioner was neither rash, nor negligent, but, the same had taken place, due to error of judgment. 9. Similar type of statements have also been made by respondents No.3 & 4, on oath. 10. Respondents No.2 to 4 have deposed about the compromise, which has taken place, between them with the petitioner. The Compromise Deed is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. 11. Not only this, respondents No.2 to 4 have also identified their signatures, over the Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2 and also shown their voluntariness and willingness to enter into the compromise with the petitioner, by stating that the compromise has been effected out of their free will, consent and without any pressure. They have also deposed that in view of the compromise, they have no objection, if the present petition is allowed, as prayed for. 5 2025:HHC:18337 12. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner, on oath. 13. Heard. 14. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.2, by lodging the FIR, in question. Respondents No.3 and 4 are the persons, who had allegedly suffered the injuries, in the accident, in question. Meaning thereby, respondents No.2 to 4 will be the star witnesses of the prosecution to depose against the petitioner, before the learned trial Court. However, respondents No.2 to 4, when appeared, before this Court, have made statements, on oath and have supported the case of the petitioner by deposing that in the said accident, the petitioner was neither rash, nor negligent, but, according to them, the accident, in question, had taken place, due to error of judgment. 15. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations, by stating, on oath, that in the accident, in question, the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, in such situation, the chances of success of prosecution case, against the petitioner, are very bleak. 6 2025:HHC:18337 16. When, the petitioner, as well as, respondents No.2 to 4, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter and vide Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2, the petitioner has executed the compromise deed with respondents No.2 to 4, then, permitting the proceedings to continue, would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law. 17. 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 petitioner, as well as, respondents No.2 to 4 to live peacefully in the society. 18. Even otherwise, acceptance of the compromise, by this Court, will save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, where final report will be submitted, which, the said Court will be in a position to devote for the decision of some other serious matters, pending before it. 19. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise, Annexure P-2, entered into between the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 4. 20. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.15/2025, dated 09.02.2025, registered 7 2025:HHC:18337 with Police Station Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 281, 125(a) and 125(b) of the BNS, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, if any. 21. The Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2, and the statements of the parties, shall form part of the judgment. 22. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge June 16, 2025 (Gaurav Thakur)