1. ( 2025:HHC:34948 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.985 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.10.2025 Vipan Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Kush Sharma and Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr. Varun Chandel and Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State. Respondents No.2 in person with Mr. Tanishq Chandel, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.46 of 2020, dated 10.03.2020, registered with Police Station, Amb, District Una, H.P., under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 & 34 of Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. ( 2025:HHC:34948 ) ‘IPC’), as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Amb, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’). 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 statement of respondent No.2, the FIR, in question, has been registered against him. 4. According to the petitioner, other co-accused persons, namely Rajni Kumari, Ekta Devi, Raghubir Singh and Rakesh Kumar had earlier approached this Court by way of Cr.MMO No.56 of 2025, which was allowed on 22.05.2025. 5. According to the petitioner that the FIR in question was registered at the instance of respondent No.2, in which he has falsely been implicated. He had alleged that on 10.03.2020, on account of trivial matter, a scuffle had taken place between petitioner and respondent No.2. 6. As per the record, respondent No.2 lodged the case by alleging the following facts:- 3. ( 2025:HHC:34948 ) “I Subhash Chand S/o Shri Rattan Chand R/o village and Post office Tyudi. I have been doing account work here for 25 years. My office is on the third floor. In which the two lower floors are owned by Vinod Kumar S/o Dharam Chand. Vinod Kumar has kept his shop goods there. And he is doing shop there. WE have taken the office on the third floor. Today on 10.03.2020 at around 7:30 in my office, Vipan Kumar S/o Shri Shamsher Sigh alias (Multan) along with Raghuveer Singh and two more men were also there. They came and beat us and also abused us and told us to vacate our office or else we will set your office on fire. Hearing the noise Arun Kumar son of Sita Ram came here who intervened and saved us. After some time, they brought women with them and beat us and threatened to kill us and took away the office files. They threatened to kill us and threatened to set the office on fire and went away.” 7. After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet which has been pending before the learned trial Court. 8. On the basis of the said compromise, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, as prayed for, by quashing of FIR No.46 of 2020, as well as, all the proceedings resultant thereto, which are pending before the learned trial Court. 9. When put to notice, the respondent No.1-State has filed the status report, disclosing therein the manner, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered and the manner, in which, the police has investigated the matter. 4. ( 2025:HHC:34948 ) 10. The person, who, at one point of time, has levelled the allegations against the petitioner, and has lodged the FIR, in question, appeared today, before this Court and made a statement, on oath, that on trivial matter a scuffle had taken place and he had lodged an FIR, in question, against the petitioner. He has deposed that with the intervention of the respectables of the society and on the basis of the compromise, a prayer for quashing of the FIR in question has been made. 11. It is the further case of the petitioner that earlier a compromise has also been effected between respondent No.2 and other accused persons namely Rajni, Ekta Devi, Raghuvir and Rakesh Kumar. The aforesaid four accused persons had filed the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by way of Cr.MMO No.56 of 2025, which was decided by this Court on 22.05.2025. 12. Similar type of statements have been made by the petitioner, on oath. 13. Heard. 14. As per the stand taken by the parties, the dispute between them has now been settled. The terms and 5. ( 2025:HHC:34948 ) conditions of the settlement, have been placed on record, vide Annexure P-3. 15. The criminal machinery, in the present case, has swung into motion, by respondent No.2, by lodging the FIR, in question. However, as per the stand, taken by the petitioner, as well as, respondent No.2, they have compromised the matter, vide Annexure P-3. 16. The terms and conditions, which have been agreed upon by the parties, in order to settle all the disputes, should be honoured by the Court, as no useful purpose would be achieved, by keeping the proceedings alive, that too, when the FIR in question has already been quashed qua the other accused persons. 17. Even otherwise, acceptance of the compromise will also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, which the learned trial Court would be in a position to devote such time in deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it. 18. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR bearing No.46 of 2020, dated 10.03.2020, registered with Police Station Amb, District Una, H.P., under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 & 34 of IPC, as well as, 6. ( 2025:HHC:34948 ) proceedings resultant thereto, which are pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 19. The compromise deed, as well as, statements of the parties, recorded today shall form part of this order. 20. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge October 14, 2025 (subhash)