2025:HHC:33877 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 946 of 2025 Decided on   :  06.10.2025 Darshan Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh,  Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner       : Petitioner in person with Mr. Yug Singhal, Advocate. For the respondents   : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General   and   Mr. Rohit Sharma,   Deputy   Advocate General,   assisted   by   ASI Nishant Kumar, Police Station Baddi, H.P., for respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 in person with   Mr. Shivansh   Dhiman, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral). Petitioner–Darshan Singh has filed the present petition,   under   Section   528   of   the   Bharatiya   Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:33877 for   quashing   of  FIR   No.   308/2018,   dated   20.12.2018, (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘FIR   in   question’)   registered under Sections 279, 337 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, with Police Station Baddi, Police District Baddi, H.P., as   well   as,   the   proceedings   resultant   thereto,   pending before   the   Court   of   learned   Additional   Chief   Judicial Magistrate,   Nalagarh,   District   Solan,   H.P.   (hereinafter referred   to   as   the   ‘trial   Court’),   on   the   basis   of   the compromise, which is stated to have taken place between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. 2. The   present   petition   has   been   filed   by   the petitioner   on   the   ground   that   on   20.12.2018,   on   the statement   of   respondent   No.   2,   FIR   in   question   was registered against him, in which, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted charge sheet before the learned trial Court. 3. It is his further case that during the pendency of those proceedings, matter has now been compromised with the intervention of the respectable members of both 3 2025:HHC:33877 the parties and on the basis of compromise, a prayer for quashing of the FIR in question has been made. 4. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, as prayed for. 5. When put to notice, police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 20.12.2018, respondent No.   2   Salim   Mohmmad   was   driving   his   four   wheeler bearing registration No. HP93­3037, at about 3 O’clock in the night from Harrayepur to Panipat, Haryana. When he reached nearby Pik up Union Malpur, at that very moment, a vehicle No. PB29K­6889 (Milk Van) came from the wrong side and hit the vehicle, due to which both the vehicles got damaged and driver of Milk Van got injured. The accident has   occurred   due   to   high   speed,   negligence   and carelessness   of   the   driver   of   Today   Milk   Van,   going   on wrong side. Thereafter, FIR in question has been registered and   the   criminal   machinery   swung   into   motion. On completion   of   the   investigation,   challan   against   the petitioner has been filed, which is pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 4 2025:HHC:33877 6. Complainant has been impleaded as respondent No. 2, in this case, who has put appearance along with his Counsel. Respondent   No.   2   has   made   a   categorical statement that on 20.12.2018, accident had taken place involving the vehicle driven by him bearing No. HP93­3037, with vehicle No. PB29K­6889, being driven by petitioner Darshan Singh and on his statement, police registered the FIR   in   question,   against   petitioner   Darshan   Singh. Thereafter, the police conducted the investigation and after the   investigation,   charge­sheet   has   been   filed,   which   is pending before the learned trial Court. 7. According to respondent No. 2, the matter has now been compromised, in terms of compromise, which bears his signatures. The said compromise is stated to have been effected between the parties out of their sweet free will and without any coercion. 8. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner. 9. On the basis of above facts, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that there is no previous criminal history of the petitioner, and according to 5 2025:HHC:33877 him, the accident in question seems to have taken place due to the error of judgment. As such, it has been prayed that petitioner, as well as, respondent No. 2, have taken positive steps to settle the dispute and said efforts should be recognized by the Court. 10. Heard. 11. When, the person who, at one point of time, had put the criminal machinery into motion, has deposed, on oath,   by   stating   that   the   matter   has   now   been   settled between   them,   then,   permitting   the  proceedings  against the petitioner to continue would be nothing, but, the abuse of process of law. The chances of success of the case of the prosecution against the petitioner are also not so bright. 12. Moreover,   the   acceptance   of   the   petition   will also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote such time for the decision of some other serious matters. 13. Considering   all   these   facts,   the   petition   is allowed. FIR   No.   308/2018   dated   20.12.2018,   under Sections   279,   337   IPC   and   Section   181   of   M.V.   Act, 6 2025:HHC:33877 registered with Police Station, Baddi, Police District Baddi, H.P., as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending in the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 14. The compromise deed, as well as, statements of the parties, recorded today shall form part of this order. 15. Pending   applications,   if   any,   also   stand disposed of. ( Virender Singh ) Judge 06th October, 2025 (Pramod Kumar)