Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:HHC:39495 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 1075 of 2025 Decided on : 20.11.2025 Rohit Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Petitioners in person, with Ms. Parul Negi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional A.G., with Ms. Ranjana Patial, Deputy A.G. for respondent No.1/State. Respondents No. 2 and 3 in person with Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No. 191 of 2023, dated 13.11.2023 (hereinafter referred to 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:39495 as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., under Sections 341, 323, 506, 147, 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Sarkaghat, 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 petitioners and respondents No.2 & 3. 3. According to the petitioners, on the complaint of respondent No.2, the FIR, in question, has been registered against them. 4. It has been contended that the FIR, in question, has been lodged by respondent No.2, alleging therein that on 13.11.2023, at about 12.30 p.m., when he was going from Government Dispensary Gaunta, to his house, petitioner No. 1 came and stopped him. Petitioner No. 1 punched and fought with respondent No. 2. Other petitioners, who were playing cricket in Gaunta School
3 2025:HHC:39495 Playground came with cricket bat and wicket in their hands. Respondent No. 2 further stated, in the complaint, that approximately 1011 months prior, he and petitioners had fought over vehicle pass and that’s why the petitioners came to fight with him. Respondent No. 2, further stated that his brother Arun and his mother Smt. Kamla Devi came to rescue him and they gave beatings to Arun also, who received injuries on his head and back.
Reeta Devi, Nurse Smt. Achala Sharma and Santosh rescued them from the clutches of the petitioners. As such, the complainant has prayed that action be taken against the petitioners. 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 petitioners, during the pendency of the case, they and respondents No.2 & 3, have compromised, the matter. 4 2025:HHC:39495
7. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which are annexed with the petition, as, Annexure P2. 8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made that the FIR, as well as, proceedings, resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, may kindly be quashed and set aside, by allowing the petition. 9. When put to notice, respondent No.1State has filed the status report, mentioning therein the manner, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.2, and the manner, in which, the police has investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet, which is pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. 10. The
petitioners
have
impleaded
the complainant, as, respondent No.2 and injured Arun as respondent No. 3. 11. The person, who, at one point of time, had levelled the allegations against the petitioners, and had lodged the FIR, in question, appeared, before this Court and made a statement, on oath, that on account of trivial
5 2025:HHC:39495 matter, a scuffle/quarrel had taken place and he has lodged FIR, in question, against the petitioners. After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the final report, which is pending before the learned trial Court. 12. Respondent No.2, has further deposed that now, during the pendency of the trial, the matter has been compromised between him, and the petitioners.
He has specifically stated that he has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for. 13. Respondent No. 3, has also deposed that on account of trivial matter, a dispute had arisen and now, the matter has been compromised, as they are of the same area. The dispute has now been resolved in terms of compromise Annexure P2. 14. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioners, on oath. 15. Heard. 16. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.2, by lodging the FIR, in question, who initially had levelled the allegations against
6 2025:HHC:39495 the petitioners, however, when appeared before this Court, he has submitted that the matter has been compromised between him, his brother and the petitioners. 17. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has compromised the matter with the petitioners, in such situation, the chances of success of prosecution case against the petitioners are not so bright. 18. When the parties, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise deed Annexure P2, then, permitting the proceedings to continue against the petitioners, would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law. 19. 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 petitioners, as well as, respondents No. 2 & 3 to live peacefully in the society. 20. Even otherwise, acceptance of the compromise, by this Court, will save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, which, the learned Court would be in a
7 2025:HHC:39495 position to devote for the decision of some other serious matters, pending before it. 21. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P2, entered into between the parties. 22.
Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.191 of 2023, dated 13.11.2023, registered with Police Station, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., under Sections 341, 323, 506, 147, 149 of the IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 23. The compromise deed, Annexure P2, and the statements of the parties, recorded in this case, in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 24. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge 20th November, 2025 (Pramod)