12025:HHC:45255 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 1212 of 2025 Decided on : 22.12.2025 Praveen Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. …Respondents ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Dy.A.G. Respondent No. 2 in person with Mr. Nitin Rishi, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) The petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.) for quashing of FIR No. 210 of 2019, dated 20.10.2019, under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code 22025:HHC:45255 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) registered with Police Station, Sadar, Hamirpur, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’). 2. Brief facts, as borne out from the record are that on 20.10.2019 at about 7:00 p.m., respondent No. 2 alongwith his son (respondent No. 3) was walking on the road near Devpal Chowk, Hamirpur. In the meanwhile, petitioner came there driving his Nano car No. HP-22E-2353 and hit both of them, due to which, they sustained injuries. 3. Thereafter, on the statement of respondent No. 2, FIR in question was registered. Criminal machinery swung into motion. After completion of investigation, challan was filed, which is pending before the learned trial Court. 4. During pendency of the case, the matter has been compromised between the parties. 5. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, and the terms and 32025:HHC:45255 conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, as Annexure P-2. 6. On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, has been made. 7. When put to notice, respondent No. 1 has filed the status report, disclosing therein, the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and criminal machinery swung into motion. 8. It is the further case of respondent No. 1 that after completion of investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. has been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court and the matter is stated to be pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 9. Today, respondent No. 2, who, has put criminal machinery into motion, has appeared in Court and has made a statement, on oath, about the manner, in which, he has lodged the FIR in question 42025:HHC:45255 and factum of the compromise, which has been effected, between the parties. 10. Lastly, respondent No. 2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he does not want to proceed further with the matter. He has also stated that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question and the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 11. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner. He has deposed that he was neither rash nor negligent while driving the car in question, but the accident has taken place due to error of judgment. 12. Heard. 13. From the facts, as mentioned in the petition, as well as, the factual position, as narrated in the status report, this Court is of the view that the matter has now been compromised, between the parties. 14. The person, who has put the criminal machinery into motion, by lodging FIR in question, 52025:HHC:45255 when, appeared before this Court, has stated that the compromise has been effected between the parties. Lastly, he has submitted that he has no objection, in case the present petition is allowed. 15. In view of the compromise having been effected, between the parties, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 do not want to proceed further with the case and has specifically stated that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 16. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace in the society and when, the parties to the lis, i.e. petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3, have buried their disputes and compromised the matter, then, the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of the FIR in question, lodged by respondent No. 2, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law. 17. Acceptance of the compromise will help the parties to live peacefully in the society and also save 62025:HHC:45255 the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, as the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote such time, for deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it. 18. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending adjudication before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 19. The statements, so recorded, and the compromise Annexure P-2 be read as part of the judgment. 20. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge December 22, 2025 Kalpana