1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 711 of 2025 Decided on : 8.8.2025 Abhishek @ Neeraj …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & anr. …Respondents ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Petitioners : Petitioners in person with Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents :Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Addl. A.G., for respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 in person with Mr. Vivek Thakur, 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. 162 of 2025, dated 16.7.2025, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 191 (2, 3), 190 and 351 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya 2 Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNS’) with Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, if any. 2. Brief facts, as borne out from the record, are that on 16.7.2025, Police received an information from Civil Hospital, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. In the hospital, complainant/respondent No. 2 has made a complaint that on 16.7.2025, he, alongwith his friends Sahil Tomar and Abhijit Singh, was returning from work and when, they were on their way to their respective homes, then, at Bangaran road near Sanjivni Hospital, at about 7:00 p.m., petitioners asked them to stop the car. When, the complainant party stopped their car, the accused attacked them with iron rod, iron bangle and knuckle grip and snatched the gold chain and wallet of complainant/respondent No. 2 and fled away from the spot. In the said scuffle, complainant/respondent No. 2 and his friends are stated to have sustained injuries. 3 3. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 Rajeev @ Rajeev Dhiman had lodged FIR in question, upon which, the Police has investigated the matter. 4. It is also the case of the parties that now, during investigation, matter has been compromised, in pursuance of compromise, Annexure P-2, as the parties 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, if any, has been made. 6. 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. 7. 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, has 4 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 the parties, in order to maintain cordial relations between him, and the petitioners, as they want to maintain their cordial relations. 8. Lastly, respondent No. 2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he does not want to proceed further with the matter. 9. Similar type of joint statement has also been made by the petitioners, on oath. 10. Heard. 11. 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. 12. 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 5 case, the FIR in question, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, if any, are quashed and the present petition is allowed. 13. 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. 14. 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. 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. Acceptance of the compromise will also encourage the parties to live in the society with harmony and peace and to maintain their cordial relations. 6 15. Acceptance of the compromise would also save the precious time of the Police, as, the Police would be in a position to devote such time, for investigating other serious matters. 16. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR in question, as well as, proceedings consequent thereto, if any, are quashed. 17. The statements of the parties and the compromise, Annexure P-2, be read as part of the judgment. 18. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge August 8, 2025 Kalpana