Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:HHC:33537 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. : 902 of 2025 Decided on : 26.09.2025 Shakti Chand …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. Gurdev Negi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General,
for respondents No.1 to 3. Respondents No.4 to 8 in person with Ms. Rajni Gandhi, 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.94 of 2025, dated 14.06.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., under Sections 281, 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:33537 and 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 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 13.06.2025, she, along with respondents No.5 to 8, were traveling from Chandigarh to her native place Sandhol, in vehicle No.HP15B1771, which was being driven by respondent No.7. At about 11.30 p.m., when, they reached just ahead Bhaged Bazar towards Ghumarwin, then, from the opposite direction, a white coloured vehicle, bearing registration No.HP89A0440, being driven by the petitioner, came there and hit their vehicle, due to which, the complainant, respondents No.5
3 2025:HHC:33537 and 6 sustained injuries. Thereafter, they were taken to Hospital. 5. After registration of the FIR, the police is conducting the investigation. 6. According to the petitioner, during the pendency of the investigation, with the intervention of the respectables of the society, the matter has been compromised with respondents No.4 to 8. 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, if any. 8. When put to notice, respondents No.1 to 3 State have filed the reply, 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 is investigating the matter. 9. Today, respondent No.4complainant, appeared before the Court and deposed, on oath, that on her statement, the FIR, in question, has been lodged against
4 2025:HHC:33537 the petitioner. She has also deposed that the accident had taken place due to error of judgment and the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent. She has also admitted her signatures on the Compromise Deed Annexure P2. 10. Apart from this, respondent No.4 has also deposed that in view of the compromise, having taken place between her, petitioner and respondents No.5 to 8, she has no objection, if the present petition is allowed, as prayed for. 11. 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 her free will, consent and without any pressure. 12. Similar type of statements have been made by the petitioner and respondents No.5 to 8, on oath. 13. Heard. 14. 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
5 2025:HHC:33537 appeared before this Court, she has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations and submitted that the matter has been compromised between, her, petitioner and respondents No.5 to 8. 15.
Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, and the person, who had received 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. 16. When the parties, with the intervention of the respectables of the society, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise deed Annexure P2, then, permitting the proceedings to continue against the petitioner, would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law. 17. 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 to 8 to live peacefully in the society. 6 2025:HHC:33537
18. 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. 19. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P2, entered into between the parties. 20. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.94 of 2025, dated 14.06.2025, registered with Police Station, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., under Sections 281 and 125(a) of the BNS, and Section 187 of the M.V. Act, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, if any, are ordered to be quashed. 21. The compromise deed, Annexure P2, and the statements of the parties, recorded today, in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 22. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) September 26, 2025(ps) Judge