1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 466 of 2025 Decided on : 3.7.2025 Tushar Thakur & ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. …Respondents ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Petitioners : Petitioners in person with Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Suchitra Sen, Advocate. For the Respondents :Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Addl. A.G., for the respondent- State. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) The petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.) for quashing of FIR No. 108 of 2024, dated 12.11.2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 115 (2), 126 (2), 190, 191 (2) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNS’) with Police 2 Station, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, stated to be pending before the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’). 2. Relief, as claimed for, has been sought on the ground that due to some mis-understanding between the petitioners, FIR in question has been lodged at the instance of petitioner No. 1, against petitioners No. 2 to 8. After registration of the FIR, Police has conducted investigation in the matter and filed charge sheet against the petitioners, which is stated to be pending before the learned trial Court. 3. It is also the case of the petitioners that now, the matter has been compromised, in pursuance of compromise, Ext. PA, as they are students and want to maintain their cordial relations, in future. 4. On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, has been made. 3 5. When put to notice, respondent-State has filed status report, disclosing therein, the factual position, about 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- State that after completion of investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. has been filed, which is pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 7. The person, who had put criminal machinery into motion, by making statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C., before the Police, i.e. petitioner No. 1, has appeared in Court today 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 him and petitioners No. 2 to 8, in order to maintain cordial relations between them. 8. Similar type of statements have also been made by petitioners No. 2 to 8, on oath. 4 9. Heard. 10. Complainant/petitioner No. 1 has categorically stated, in his statement, on oath, that the compromise has been effected between him and petitioners No. 2 to 8, in order to maintain their cordial relations, in future. 11. In view of the compromise deed, Ext. PA, which bears the signatures of petitioners, the petitioners pray that the FIR in question, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, be quashed and the present petition be allowed. 12. Moreover, when, the petitioners have settled the dispute with regard to FIR in question, then the compromise, which has been entered into between the parties, annexed with the petition as Ext. PA, should be honoured by this Court, as no useful purpose would be served, by keeping the proceedings alive. 13. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace in the society and when, the petitioners to the 5 lis, have buried all their disputes between them and compromised the matter, then, the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of FIR in question, lodged by petitioner No. 1, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law. 14. Acceptance of the compromise would also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, as, the learned trial Court would be in a position to devote such time, for deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it. 15. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR in question, as well as, proceedings consequent thereto, pending adjudication before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 16. The statements of the parties and the compromise, Ext. PA, be read as part of the judgment. 17. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge July 3, 2025 Kalpana 6