2025:HHC:45325 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. : 1167 of 2025 Decided on :    23.12.2025 Deepak & Others …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh,  Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners    : Petitioners in person with Mr. Vishal Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1. Respondents   No.2   to   4   in   person with Mr. Dikken Kumar, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) 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.163 of 2022, dated 10.10.2022 (hereinafter referred to as   the   FIR,   in   question),   registered   with   Police   Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 323, 324,   427   and   Section   34   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:45325 (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   ‘IPC’),  as   well   as,   the proceedings   resultant   thereto,   which   are   stated   to   be pending   before   the   Court   of   learned   Chief   Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharmashala, District Kangra, 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 to 4. 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 10.10.2022,  at about 11.40 a.m. he  was in the car parking   area,   where,   verbal   altercation   was   going   on between   NSUI   President   Anil   and   ABVP   worker   Deepak Chaudhary. At that time, Deepak Chaudhary had attacked upon Anil with  Darat  (big sickle). Many students have gathered there. Divesh was also sitting on his scooty there and the boys, who were there had attacked upon him, due to which, he and Divesh, had sustained injuries on their 3 2025:HHC:45325 head and other parts of the body. When the boys have attacked   upon   them,   Deepak   Chaudhary   was   having Darat,   Abhinav   Chaudhary   @   Abu   was   having   rod, Abhishek Chaudhary and Tushar Chaudhary were having Kada  and Avlok was having rod. When the complainant had tried to pacify them, then, Abu had attacked upon his head with rod and Deepak had attacked with fist blows. 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 to 4, have compromised, the matter. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which are annexed with the petition, as, Annexure P­3. 7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made that the FIR, as well as, proceedings, resultant 4 2025:HHC:45325 thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, may kindly be quashed and set aside, by allowing the petition. 8. 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. 9. The petitioners have impleaded the complainant,   as,   respondent   No.2   and   the   injured   as respondents No.3 and 4. 10. 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 matter, a scuffle/quarrel had taken place and respondent No.2 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. 5 2025:HHC:45325 11. Respondent   No.2,   has   further   deposed   that now, during the pendency of the trial, the matter has been compromised between him, and the petitioners, as well as, respondents No.3 and 4. He has specifically stated that he has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for. 12. Similar type of statements have also been made by the petitioners, as well as respondents No.3 and 4, on oath. 13. Heard. 14. 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 the petitioners, however, when appeared before this Court, he has submitted that the matter has been compromised between, him, and the petitioners, as well as, respondents No.3 and 4. 15. 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. 6 2025:HHC:45325 16. When   the   parties,   have   buried   all   their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise deed Annexure P­3, then, permitting the proceedings to continue against the petitioners, 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 petitioners,   as   well   as,   respondents   No.2   to   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 learned trial Court, which, the learned Court would 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, in question,  as well as, the proceedings 7 2025:HHC:45325 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  in this  case,  in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 22. Pending   miscellaneous   application(s),   if   any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) December 23, 2025(ps) Judge