Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:HHC:26336 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 682 of 2025 Decided on : 04.08.2025 Gurpal @ Pala & Others …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Petitioners in person with Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr. H.S. Rawat, Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, assisted by HC Vipan Kumar No.63, I.O. Police Station Gagret, District Una, for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 in person with Mr. Rohit, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge
(oral). Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.34 of 2025, dated 04.04.2025 (hereinafter referred to as 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:26336 the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Gagret, District Una, H.P., under Sections 140(1), 115(2), 191(3), 190 and 133 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, which has taken place between the petitioners and respondent No.2. 3. According to the petitioners, on the statement of respondent No.2, the FIR, in question, has been registered against them. 4. After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation, however, final report, has not yet been filed before the competent Court of law. 5. According to the petitioners, during the pendency of the aforesaid case, they have compromised the matter with respondent No.2, in order to maintain peace and harmony in the society. 6. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, vide compromise deed, Annexure P2. 3 2025:HHC:26336
7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made that the FIR, in question, as well as, proceedings, resultant thereto, if any, may kindly be quashed and set aside, by allowing the petition. 8. When put to notice, respondent No.1State has filed the status report, disclosing therein that respondent No.2, Pradeep Kumar lodged a case mentioning therein that he is Barber by profession and have developed acquaintance with Renu wife of Gurpal @ Pala, petitioner No.1.
On 27.03.2025, respondent No.2, along with Renu had gone to Gagret, where, they had stayed in a Hotel. On the next date at about 34 p.m., when they came out of the Hotel, the assailants/accused/petitioners came there in four vehicles and started beating him with fist and kick blows. Accused Gurpal Singh has inflicted blow with big sickle on his head. Thereafter, accused in order to abduct him, put him in the vehicle and took him to Gazipur Mohalla. They have also balded him and after making him naked, dragged him. Thereafter, when, he became unconscious, they had thrown him in the gate of Government Hospital Adampur. 4 2025:HHC:26336
9. Respondent No.2, who, at one point of time, has put the criminal machinery into motion, appeared before this Court and has stated that now, he has compromised the matter with the petitioners, out of his free will, consent and without any pressure. He has also admitted his signatures on Annexure P2. He, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for. 10. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioners, on oath. 11. Heard. 12. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.2, by lodging the FIR, in question, who initially had levelled the allegations against the petitioners, however, when appeared before this Court, he has submitted that he has compromised the matter with the petitioners. 13. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has compromised the matter with the petitioners, the chances of success of prosecution case against the petitioners are not so bright. 5 2025:HHC:26336
14. When the parties, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise Annexure P2, then, permitting the proceedings to continue against the petitioners, would be nothing, but, abuse of process of law. 15.
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 petitioners, as well as, respondent No.2 to live peacefully in the society. 16. 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. 17. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P2, entered into between the parties. 18. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.34 of 2025, dated 04.04.2025, registered with Police Station, Gagret, District Una, H.P.,
6 2025:HHC:26336 under Sections 140(1), 115(2), 191(3), 190, and 133 of the BNS, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, if any, are ordered to be quashed. 19. The compromise deed, Annexure P2, and the statements of the parties, recorded in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 20. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge August 04, 2025(ps)