1   ( 2025:HHC:31763 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.827 of 2025 Date of Decision: 15.09.2025 Abhishek Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Varun Chandel and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma & Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.1/State Respondents No.2 to 4 in person, with Ms. Manjeet Kaur, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has 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.56 of 2025, dated 17.04.2025 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 281, 125(A) & 125(B) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S’) with Police Station, Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, if any. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2   ( 2025:HHC:31763 ) 2. According to the petitioner, on 17.04.2025, he was going from village Kaned to his house at Kawadi along with his wife Santosh Kumari and Aunt Swarna Devi, on his Scooter bearing No.HP94A 2982, being driven by the petitioner. When, they reached at the turn, near the bridge, a little behind Valdhar village, at about 4:00 PM, a Car is being driven by its driver in high speed, came from Valdhar side. The petitioner stopped his scooty on the left side of the road. Meanwhile, a car bearing No.HP37H 6714, coming from the opposite direction, hit the scooty of the petitioner. Due to the collision, petitioner got injuries in the chest and leg, his wife sustained injuries in the head and his aunt got sustained injuries in the right leg and other parts of the body. Due to this, respondent No.2 had lodged the FIR in question. 3. Relief, as claimed for, has been sought on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and respondent No.2 to 4, in order to maintain their cordial relations. 4. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which have been annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-2. 3   ( 2025:HHC:31763 ) 5. On all these submissions, a prayer has been made to allow the present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto. 6. When put to notice, respondent No.1, has filed the status report, disclosing therein, the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and the manner, in which, the investigation is being conducted. 7. Today, respondent No.2, had put criminal machinery into motion, has appeared in the Court and has made a statement, on oath, about the manner, in which, he had lodged the FIR in question and factum of the compromise, which has been effected, between the parties, in order to maintain cordial relations, between them. According to him, there was no negligence on part of the petitioner, in the accident in question, as the same had taken place, due to error of judgment. 8. Lastly, respondent No.2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he does not want to proceed further with the matter, in order to maintain their cordial relations. He has also stated that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question and the proceedings resultant thereto, if any, are quashed. 4   ( 2025:HHC:31763 ) 9. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner, as well as, respondents No.3 and 4 (injured). 10. Heard. 11. From the facts, as mentioned in the petition, as well as, the factual position, as narrated in the status report, this Court is of the view that the matter has now been compromised, between the parties. 12. The person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, by lodging FIR in question, when, appeared before this Court, has stated that the compromise has been effected between the parties. Respondent No.2, has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations of rash and negligent driving, by deposing that he was not negligent, while driving and the accident, in question, had taken place, due to error of judgment. 13. In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, which bears the signatures of petitioner, as well as, respondents No.2 to 4 and the statements of the complainant and injured, who have deposed that they do not want to proceed further with the case and have specifically stated that they have no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, if any, are quashed, this 5   ( 2025:HHC:31763 ) Court is of the view that 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. petitioner and respondents No.2 to 4 have buried their disputes and compromised the matter, then, continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of the FIR in question, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law. 15. Acceptance of the compromise will help the parties to live peacefully in the society and also save the precious judicial time of the Court, where the charge-sheet will be filed and such Court, will be in a position to devote such time, for deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it. 16. When, respondent No.2 has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations of rash and negligent driving, in that eventuality, chances of success of the prosecution case, against the petitioner, are not so bright, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive. 17. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, if any, are quashed. 6   ( 2025:HHC:31763 ) 18. The statements, so recorded, and the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, be read as part of the judgment. 19. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge September 15, 2025 (subhash)