2025:HHC:39615 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. : 1115 of 2025 Decided on : 22.11.2025 Sahil Prakash …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 Ms. Vishali Lakhanpal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat & Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General, with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General, assisted by SI Chamann Lal, Addl. SHO, Police Station Kangra, for respondents No.1 to 3. Respondents No.4 and 6 in person & respondent No.5 (through Video Conferencing) with Mr. Abhishek 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.121 of 2025, dated 07.07.2025 (hereinafter referred to 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:39615 as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 281, and 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, if any. 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 complaint of respondent No.4, 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 06.07.2025, he, along with his father, Vikram Singh, was returning back to their village Balla from 53 miles, in vehicle No.HP40A-5889. At 09.30 p.m., when, they reached at Utsav Palace, in village Kachhiyari, then, petitioner Sahil Prakash, while driving vehicle No.HP62A-2011, hit their vehicle and the accident had taken place. In the said accident his father Shri Vikram Singh, Sahil, as well as, respondent No.6 Aryan had sustained injuries. Thereafter, they were taken to Hospital. 3 2025:HHC:39615 5. After registration of the FIR, the police is conducting the investigation. 6. According to the petitioner, during the pendency of the investigation, with the intervention of the respectables of the society, the matter has been compromised with respondents No.4 and 5. The Compromise Deed is Annexure P-2. 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, respondents No.1 to 3- State have filed the reply, mentioning therein the manner, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.4, and the manner, in which, the police is investigating the matter. 9. Today, respondent No.4-complainant, 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 deposed that since, he, petitioner and respondents No.5 and 6, are residents of the 4 2025:HHC:39615 same area, as such, with the intervention of the respectable of the society and in order to maintain their future cordial relations, he has compromised the matter with the petitioner. He has also admitted his signatures on the Compromise Deed Annexure P-2. 10. Apart from this, respondent No.4 has also deposed that in view of the compromise, having taken place between him, petitioner and respondents No.5, he has no objection, if the present petition is allowed, as prayed for. 11. In addition to this, respondent No.4 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. 12. Similar type of statements have been made by the petitioner and respondents No.5, and 6, on oath. Respondent No.5 appeared through Video Conferencing and made the statement. His statement has been sent to him, by the learned counsel, through e-mail and he has re- submitted the same, after signing it. 5 2025:HHC:39615 13. Heard. 14. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.4, 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 exonerated the petitioner from the allegations and submitted that the matter has been compromised between, him, petitioner and respondents No.5. 15. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, and the person, who had received injuries, have 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, with the intervention of the respectables of the society, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise deed Annexure P-2, then, permitting the proceedings to continue against the petitioner, would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law. 6 2025:HHC:39615 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 petitioner, as well as, respondents No.4 to 6 to live peacefully in the society. 18. Even otherwise, acceptance of the compromise, by this Court, will save the precious judicial time of the Court, where the final report is to be filed, which, the said Court will 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 P-2, entered into between the parties. 20. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.121 of 2025, dated 07.07.2025, registered with Police Station, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 281 and 125(a) of the BNS, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, if any, are ordered to be quashed. 7 2025:HHC:39615 21. The compromise deed, Annexure P-2, and the statements of the parties, recorded today, in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 22. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) November 22, 2025(ps) Judge