2025:HHC:33764 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. : 920 of 2025 Decided on  :  26.09.2025 Ajay 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. Subhash Chander, Advocate. For the respondents   : Mr. Ranjna   Patial,   Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Respondent   No.4   in   person with   Mr. Bodh   Raj   Thakur, 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.8 of 2024, dated 23.01.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, BSL Colony Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., under Sections 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:33764 279,   337,   338   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code   (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), and Sections 180, 181 and 194­D of   the   Motor   Vehicles   Act,  as   well   as,   the   proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court   of   learned   Judicial   Magistrate   First   Class,   Court No.2,   Sundernagar,   District   Mandi,   H.P.   (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). 2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the basis of the compromise,  which has taken place between the petitioner and respondent No.4. 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 23.01.2024, while driving Tipper No.HP31C­7164, the complainant was on his way from Ouli to Choki and at about 4.30 p.m., when he reached at Saran Galu curve, then, from the opposite side, a motorcyclist with pillion rider, while riding motorcycle No.HP31­D­3241, came there 3 2025:HHC:33764 and struck against the tipper, due to which, the petitioner sustained injuries. Thereafter, he was taken to Hospital. 5. After   registration   of   the   FIR,   the   police   has conducted the investigation and submitted the final report, which   is   stated   to   be   pending   adjudication   before   the learned trial Court. 6. According   to   the   petitioner,   during   the pendency   of   the   case,   with   the   intervention   of   the respectables of the society, and in order to maintain our future cordial relations,  the matter has been compromised with respondent No.4. The Compromise Deed is Annexure P­3. 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 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 4 2025:HHC:33764 and filed the charge­sheet, which is pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. 9. The petitioner has impleaded the complainant, as respondent No.4. 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 P­3. 10. Apart   from   this,   respondent   No.4   has   also deposed   that   in   view   of   the   compromise,   having   taken place   between   him   and   respondent   No.4,   he   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 his free will, consent and without any pressure. 12. Similar type of statement has been made by the petitioner, on oath. 13. Heard. 5 2025:HHC:33764 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 appeared   before   this   Court,   he   has   submitted   that   the matter   has   been   compromised   between,   him   and   the petitioner. 15. Once,   the   person,   who   had   put   the   criminal machinery into motion, has 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 P­3, 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 6 2025:HHC:33764 petitioner, as well as, respondent No.4 to live peacefully in the society. 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 P­3, entered into between the parties. 20. Considering   all   these   facts,   the   petition   is allowed and FIR No.8 of 2024, dated 23.01.2024, registered with   Police   Station,   BSL   Colony   Sundernagar,   District Mandi, H.P., under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the IPC, and Sections 180, 181 and 194­D of the Motor Vehicles Act, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 21. The compromise deed, Annexure P­3, and the statements of the parties, recorded today, in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 7 2025:HHC:33764 22. Pending   miscellaneous   application(s),   if   any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) September 26, 2025(ps) Judge