2025:HHC:28998 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 728 of 2025 Decided on : 26.08.2025 Rajat Rana & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Petitioners in person with Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Tarun Brakta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1/ State. Respondent No. 2 in person with Mr. Sugandh Verma, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge Petitioners have approached this Court, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:28998 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No. 115/2024, dated 16.12.2024, registered under Sections 303(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 32, 33, 41 & 42 of Indian Forest Act, (hereinafter referred to as “FIR in question”) with Police Station Bangana, District Una, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, if any, on the basis of the compromise, which is stated to have taken place between the petitioners and respondent No. 2. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the FIR in question was registered at the instance of respondent No. 2, in which, he had alleged that on 16.12.2024, at 2:30 am, one Hem Raj son of Sh. Kishan Chand informed that Khair trees are being cut down by some unknown persons in the land commonly owned by him (Hem Raj), connecting to the Government forest UPF Cantt. Respondent No. 2 (Tarsem Kumar), Forest Guard In-charge Chocki Post, arrived on the scene. Thereafter respondent No. 2, reported the matter to the police. 3 2025:HHC:28998 3. On the basis of above facts, police registered the FIR in question and criminal machinery swung into motion. 4. As stated above, after completion of the investigation, police has prepared the charge-sheet, which is under scrutiny. 5. As per the case of the petitioners, during investigation of the case, matter has been settled between the parties, as, due to misunderstanding and miscommunication, respondent No. 2 had lodged the FIR in question, since, the Khair wood, which was cut and removed was grown on their (petitioners No. 1 to 4) own land. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing and the same has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. 6. On the basis of Annexure P-2, a prayer has been made to allow the petition by quashing the FIR in question. 7. When put to notice, respondent No. 1/State has filed the status report, disclosing therein, the manner, in which the FIR in question has been registered and how the 4 2025:HHC:28998 police had conducted the investigation and prepared the charge sheet against the petitioners, which is under scrutiny. 8. Respondent No. 2, who at one point of time, had levelled the allegations against the petitioners, when appeared before this Court today, has made a statement, exonerating the petitioners from the allegations, which have been levelled against them, affirming that the FIR in question was lodged by him and now, matter has been compromised between them, as Khair trees were found to be grown on their (petitioners No. 1 to 4) own land. The said compromise has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. 9. Respondent No. 2 has also deposed that he has no objection, if the petition is allowed, in view of the compromise and the FIR in question is quashed. 10. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioners jointly. 11. Heard. 12. In view of the statements of the parties, especially the statement of respondent No. 2, who at one 5 2025:HHC:28998 point of time, had lodged the FIR in question, but, when appeared in the witness box has exonerated them, by stating that the matter has been compromised between them, as the Khair wood, which was unauthorizedly being transported by the petitioners No. 1 to 4, was found to be grown on their own land, this Court is fully satisfied with regard to the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P- 2. 13. 13. As per the stand taken by the parties i.e. petitioners, as well as, respondent No. 2, the FIR was lodged due to misunderstanding and miscommunication. 14. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society. When, the petitioners and respondent No.2 have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, then, permitting the proceedings to continue, before the learned trial Court, would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law. 15. 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 6 2025:HHC:28998 a position to devote for the decision of some other serious matters, pending before it. 16. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 115/2024, dated 16.12.2024 registered with Police Station Bangana, District Una, H.P., under Sections 303(2), 3(5), of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and Sections 32, 33, 41 & 42 of Indian Forest Act, as well as, the proceedings, resultant thereto, if any, are ordered to be quashed. 17. The compromise deed, Annexure P-2, and the statements of the parties, recorded today, shall form part of the judgment. 18. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge August 26, 2025 (Pramod)