1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 996 of 2025 Decided on: 6.11.2025 Parvez … 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. Pranav Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Addl. A.G., for respondent No. 1. Respondents No. 2 and 3 in person with Mr. Vijay Panchta, 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. 125/2023, dated 8.9.2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) with Police Station, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P., as well as, 2 the proceedings resultant thereto, stated to be pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’). 2. Brief facts, as borne out from the pleadings, are that the complainant (respondent No. 2) has got recorded in her statement, under Section 154 Cr. P.C., before the Police, that on 8.9.2023, when, she, alongwith her daughter (respondent No. 3) was going towards Nahan, on Scooty bearing registration No. HP18B-9468, being driven by her, then, at about 9:45 a.m., at Banog bifurcation, a car bearing registration No. HP17F-9667 came in a very fast speed from the opposite side and stuck against her Scooty. In the accident, her daughter (respondent No. 3) sustained injuries. 3. As such, on the statement of respondent No. 2, FIR in question was registered. After registration of the FIR, Police has conducted investigation and submitted the report, under Section 173 of Cr. P.C., which is pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. 3 4. During pendency of the trial, with the intervention of the respectables of the society, the matter is stated to be compromised between the parties. 5. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which has been annexed with the petition, 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, if any, has been made. 7. When put to notice, respondent/State 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. 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 and factum of the compromise, which has been effected, between the parties, in order to maintain 4 cordial relations, between her, her daughter (respondent No. 3) and the petitioner. 9. Lastly, respondent No. 2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that she does not want to proceed further with the matter, as, the parties want to live in peace and harmony in future. She has also stated that she has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question and the proceedings resultant thereto, if any, are quashed. 10. Similar type of statements have also been made by respondent No. 3 and the petitioner. The petitioner, in his statement, has deposed that he was neither rash nor negligent, but, the accident in question took place, due to error of judgment. 11. Heard. 12. 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. 5 13. The person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, by lodging FIR in question, when, appeared before this Court, has stated that the compromise has been effected between the parties. Lastly, she has submitted that she has no objection, in case the present petition is allowed. 14. In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P- 2, which bears the signatures of petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3, respondents No. 2 and 3 do not want to proceed further with the case and have specifically stated that they have 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. 15. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society and when, the parties to the lis, i.e. petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3, have buried their disputes and compromised the matter, then, the continuation of 6 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. 16. In view of the stand taken by respondents Nos. 2 and 3, on oath, before this Court, the chances of success of the case of the prosecution are very bleak. 17. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 18. The statements, so recorded, and the compromise, Annexure P-2, be read as part of the judgment. 19. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge 6.11.2025 Kalpana