2025:HHC:36626 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. : 937 of 2025 Decided on  :  31.10.2025 Manish Sharma …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. Varun Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents   : Mr. H.S.   Rawat,   Additional Advocate   General   with   Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Respondents   No.2   to   5   in person   with   Ms. Swati Sharma, 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.278 of 2022, dated 15.11.2022 (hereinafter referred to as   the   FIR,   in   question),   registered   with   Police   Station, 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:36626 West Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 279, 337, 338 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.2, Shimla, District Shimla, 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 respondents No.2 to 5. 3. According to the petitioner, on the complaint of respondent No.2, 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   15.11.2022,   while   driving   vehicle   No.HP01B­1168, which was owned by one Narender Singh Chandel, he was on his way to Shimla. The said vehicle was Taxi. At about 5.00/5.15   p.m.,   when,   the   complainant   reached   near Shoghi, then, from the opposite directions, a red coloured vehicle,   being   driven   by   petitioner,   bearing   registration 3 2025:HHC:36626 No.HP13­3200, came there and struck against his vehicle, due  to  which,  the   complainant,  Rupa Devi,  Vallety   Lal, Mahesh Sharma and Jagdish Chauhan, sustained injuries. Petitioner Mahesh Sharma also sustained injuries. 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, he was neither rash nor negligent, and the accident had taken place due to error   of   judgment,   as   such,   the   matter   has   been compromised   with   respondents   No.2   to   5. The Compromise Deed is Annexure P­2. 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, 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, 4 2025:HHC:36626 the police has investigated the matter and filed the charge­ sheet, which is pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. 9. The petitioner has impleaded the complainant, as respondent No.2 and the injured as respondents No.3 to 5. 10. Today, respondent No.2­complainant, 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 P­2. 10. Apart   from   this,   respondent   No.2   has   also deposed   that   in   view   of   the   compromise,   having   taken place between him and respondents No.2 to 5, he has no objection, if the present petition is allowed, as prayed for. 11. In addition to this, respondent No.2 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. 5 2025:HHC:36626 12. Similar type of statements have been made by the petitioner, as well as, respondents No.3 to 5, 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 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, respondents No.3 to 5 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,   have   buried   all   their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise deed Annexure P­2, 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 6 2025:HHC:36626 petition,   would   also   give   another   opportunity   to   the petitioner,   as   well   as,   respondents   No.2   to   5   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 P­2, entered into between the parties. 20. Considering   all   these   facts,   the   petition   is allowed   and   FIR   No.278   of   2022,   dated   15.11.2022, registered   with   Police   Station,   West   Shimla,   District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 21. The compromise deed, Annexure P­2, and the statements of the parties, recorded today, in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 7 2025:HHC:36626 22. Pending   miscellaneous   application(s),   if   any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) October 31, 2025(ps) Judge