1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 729 of 2025 Decided on : 26.8.2025 Tarun Sharma & anr. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & ors. …Respondents ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Petitioners : Petitioners in person with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents :Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Addl. A.G., for respondent-State. Respondent No. 2 in person with Ms. Sugandh Verma, Advocate. 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. 114 of 2024, dated 16.12.2024, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 3(5), 117(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter 2 referred to as ‘the BNS’) with Police Station, Bangana, District Una, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, stated to be pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2, Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’). 2. The factual position, as emerges from the record is that complainant/respondent No. 2 has got recorded his statement under Section 173 (2) Cr. P.C., disclosing therein, that on 15.12.2024, he was told by Mandeep @ Kalu to visit Kaint village with Bolero No. HP53B-4440 to get some material. On 16.12.2024, at about 2:00 a.m. in the night hours, the complainant/respondent No. 2 handed over the aforesaid vehicle to the person, who was supposed to meet him at Kaint village, to get the material from the forest. When, the complainant/respondent No. 2 was waiting for the aforesaid person to return back, a Scorpio bearing No. HP12AJ-0135, driven by his friend Mayank, came there. In the meanwhile, 3 petitioners/accused Hem Raj and Tarun came on the spot and fired gun shots in the air, upon which, the complainant/respondent No. 2 tried to snatch the gun from the accused person. Petitioner No. 1/accused Tarun is stated to have beaten the complainant/respondent No. 2 with the sticks and petitioner No. 2/accused Hem Raj has beaten him with the kick blows. In the meantime, local persons and Police officials, as well as, officials of Forest Department came to the spot and took him to Regional Hospital, Una. 3. Thereafter, on the statement of respondent No. 2, FIR in question has been lodged against the petitioners. 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 in the learned trial Court. 4. It is also the case of the petitioners that now, the matter has been compromised, in pursuance of compromise, Annexure P-2, as the parties are related 4 to each other, and want to maintain their cordial relations, in future. 5. 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. 6. When put to notice, respondent No. 1-State has filed the 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. 7. It is the further case of respondent No. 1- 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. 8. The person, who had put criminal machinery into motion, by making statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C., before the Police, i.e. respondent No. 2, 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, 5 which has been effected, between the parties, in order to maintain cordial relations between them, as the petitioners, are his relatives. Respondent No. 2 has deposed that gun was not used in the incident and the said fact had mistakenly been got mentioned in the FIR. 9. Lastly, respondent No. 2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he does not want to proceed further with the matter. 10. Similar type of joint statement has also been made by the petitioners, on oath. 11. Heard. 12. Complainant/respondent No. 2 has categorically stated, in his statement, on oath, that the compromise has been effected between the parties, in order to maintain their cordial relations, in future. 13. In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, which bears the signatures of petitioners, and respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 does not want to proceed further with the case and has no objection, in 6 case, the FIR in question, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed and the present petition is allowed. 14. Moreover, when, the parties 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 Annexure P-2, should be honoured by this Court, as no useful purpose would be served, by keeping the proceedings alive. 15. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace in the society and when, the parties to the lis, i.e. petitioners, and respondent No. 2, have buried all their disputes and compromised the matter, then, the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of FIR in question, lodged by respondent No. 2, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law. 7 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. The statements of the parties and the compromise, Annexure P-2, be read as part of the judgment. 19. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge August 26, 2025 Kalpana