1 ( 2025:HHC:33618 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.940 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.09.2025 Shubham Bhandari & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Petitioners in person, with Mr. Vaibhav Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State Respondent No.2 in person with Ms. Nisha Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) The petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.’) for quashing of FIR No.131 of 2023, dated 26.06.2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 452, 323, 325 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’), with Police Station, Solan, District Solan, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Solan, District Solan, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:33618 2. Relief, as claimed for, has been sought on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the petitioners and respondent No.2, in order to maintain their cordial relations. 3. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which have been annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-2. 4. On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, has been made. 5. 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 criminal machinery swung into motion. 6. It is the further case of respondent No.1 that after completion of investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court and the matter is stated to be pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 7. Today, respondent No.2, who, had put criminal machinery into motion, has appeared in Court and has 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 3 ( 2025:HHC:33618 effected, between the parties, in order to maintain cordial relations, between him and petitioners. According to him, he is an Advocate by profession and practicing in District Court, Solan. On trivial matter a scuffle had taken place between them. 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 cordial relations between them. 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, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 9. Similar type of statements have also been made by the petitioners, on oath. 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. 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 specifically stated that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings 4 ( 2025:HHC:33618 resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 13. 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.2, have buried their disputes and compromised the matter, then, the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of the FIR in question, lodged by respondent No.2, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law. 14. Acceptance of the compromise will help the parties to live peacefully in the society and also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, as the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote such time, for deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it. 15. When, respondent No.2 has exonerated the petitioners from the allegations, in that eventuality, chances of success of the prosecution case, against the petitioners, are not so bright, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive. 16. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending adjudication before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 5 ( 2025:HHC:33618 17. The statements, so recorded, and the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, be read as part of the judgment. 18. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge September 26, 2025 (subhash)