Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:HHC:24990 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. : 625 of 2025 Decided on : 28.07.2025 Sunil Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur,
Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General,
for respondents No.1 to 3. Respondents No.4 & 5 in person with Mr. Ankit Dhiman, 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 No.74 of 2025, dated 09.04.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Sadar Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., under Sections 281, 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:24990 and 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (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 parties. 3. According to the petitioner, on the complaint of respondent No.4, the FIR, in question, has been registered against him. 4. It has been contended that the FIR, in question, has been lodged by respondent No.4, alleging therein that on 09.04.2025, at about 6.15/6.30 p.m., he was standing in front of his shop and his uncle Jaswant (respondent No.5) was coming towards his shop from the opposite side of the road, then, vehicle bearing No.HP22C6996, came there from Hamirpur side, in a high speed and hit his uncle. Consequently, he fell down and sustained injuries. He came to know about the name of the said driver as Sunil Kumar. 5. After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and the chargesheet is ready for submitting the same in the competent Court of law. 3 2025:HHC:24990
6. According to the petitioner, during the pendency of the investigation, with the intervention of the respectables of the family and friends, he has compromised the matter with respondents No.4 and 5. The Compromise Deed is Annexure P2. 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, respondents No.1 to 3 State have filed the status report, mentioning therein the manner, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.4, and the manner, in which, the police has investigated the matter. 9. The petitioner has impleaded the complainant, as respondent No.4 and the injured as respondent No.5. 10. Today, respondent No.4complainant, appeared before the Court and deposed, on oath, that on his statement, the FIR, in question, has been lodged against the petitioner. He has also admitted his signatures on the Compromise Deed Annexure P2. 4 2025:HHC:24990
11. Apart from this, respondent No.4 has also deposed that in view of the compromise, having taken place between him, respondent No.5 and the petitioner, he has no objection, if the present petition is allowed, as prayed for. 12. In addition to this, respondent No.4 has also shown his voluntariness and willingness to enter into the compromise with the petitioner, by stating that the compromise has been effected out of his free will, consent and without any pressure. 13. Similar type of statements have been made by the petitioner and respondent No.5, on oath. 14. Heard. 15. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.4, by lodging the FIR, in question, who initially had levelled the allegations of rash and negligent driving against the petitioner, however, when appeared before this Court, he has submitted that he had entered into a compromise with the petitioner. 16. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, and the person, who had received
5 2025:HHC:24990 injuries, have compromised the matter with the petitioner, in such situation, the chances of success of prosecution case against the petitioner are not so bright.
17. When the parties, with the intervention of the respectables of the family and friends, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise Annexure P2, then, permitting the proceedings to continue against the petitioner, would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law. 18. 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.4 and 5 to live peacefully in the society. 19. Even otherwise, acceptance of the compromise, by this Court, will save the precious judicial time of the Court, where the final report is to be filed, which, the said Court will be in a position to devote for the decision of some other serious matters, pending before it. 6 2025:HHC:24990
20. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P2, entered into between the parties. 21. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.74 of 2025, dated 09.04.2025, registered with Police Station, Sadar Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., under Sections 281 and 125(a) of the BNS, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, if any. 22. The compromise deed, Annexure P2, and the statements of the parties, recorded today, in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 23. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) July 28, 2025(ps) Judge