2025:HHC:39613 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 1087 of 2025 Decided on : 22.11.2025 Romal Kumar Thakur …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Mr. Mohinder Zharaick Additional Advocates General and Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Respondents No. 4 & 5 in person, Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral). Petitioner–Romal Kumar Thakur 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. 181/2025, dated 11.06.2025, (hereinafter referred to as ‘FIR in question’) registered under Sections 281, 125(a) and 125(b) of 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:39613 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), with Police Station Sadar Una, District Una, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, District Una, 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 respondents No. 4 & 5. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, on the ground, that on 11.06.2025, on the statement of respondent No. 4, 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 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. 3 2025:HHC:39613 5. When put to notice, police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 11.06.2025, respondent No. 4, along with her husband, respondent No. 5 Sanjeev Kumar, was coming from Mehatpur to their home at Nari, on scooty bearing No. HP20E-8059. At about 11:45 am, when, they reached at Mount Carmel School near Rakkar, then, a car bearing registration No. HP78-1388, being driven by petitioner Romal Kumar Thakur, came at a high speed and hit their scooty. Consequently, respondents No. 4 & 5 sustained injuries. After the accident, the driver of offending vehicle, took the injured persons to the hospital. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of car driver i.e. Romal Kumar Thakur (petitioner). 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. 6. Complainant and injured have been impleaded as respondents No. 4 and 5, in this case, who have put appearance along with their Counsel. Respondent No. 4 4 2025:HHC:39613 has made a categorical statement that she, as well as, her husband-respondent No. 5, sustained injuries in the accident and on her statement, police registered the FIR in question, against petitioner Romal Kumar Thakur. Respondent No. 5 has made a categorical statement that on 11.06.2025, an accident had taken place, involving his scooty, bearing No. HP20E-8059 and vehicle bearing registration No. HP78-1388. The offending vehicle was being driven by petitioner Romal Kumar Thakur. On the statement of respondent No. 4, the police registered the FIR in question. Thereafter, the police conducted the investigation and after the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed, which is pending before the learned trial Court. 7. According to respondents No. 4 and 5, the matter has now been compromised, in terms of compromise Annexure P-2, which bears their signatures encircled red at points A and B, respectively. The said compromise is stated to have been effected between the parties out of their sweet free will and without any coercion. 5 2025:HHC:39613 8. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner. 9. Heard. 10. 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 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, respondents No. 4 & 5, have taken positive steps to settle the dispute and said efforts should be recognized by the Court. 11. When, the person who has put the criminal machinery into motion has deposed, on oath, by stating that the matter has been compromised, 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 6 2025:HHC:39613 devote such time for the decision of some other serious matters. 13. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 181/2025 dated 11.06.2025, under Sections 281, 125(a), 125(b) of BNS, registered with Police Station, Sadar Una, District Una, H.P., as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending in the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 14. The compromise deeds Annexure P-2, 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 22nd November, 2025 (Pramod Kumar)