2025:HHC:38503 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. : 1029 of 2025 Decided on : 14.11.2025 Arvind Singh Sajwan …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Pavinder, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 in person with Mr. Prikshit Rathore, 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.157 of 2023, dated 27.11.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Dharampur, District Solan, H.P., under Sections 279 and 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:38503 323 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Sections 187 and 185 of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). 2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the basis of the compromise, which has taken place between the petitioner and respondent No.2. 3. According to the petitioner, on the complaint of respondent No.2, 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.2, alleging therein that on 26.11.2023, at about 7.30 p.m., after closing his shop at Dharampur, he was on the way to Kasauli, in vehicle No.HP64B-1633. At about 8.15 p.m., when, he reached near Pinegrow School, then, from Kasauli side a car, being driven by its driver (petitioner), came there and hit his car. Thereafter, the said vehicle proceeded towards Dharampur. 3 2025:HHC:38503 The complainant chased the said car and at Windsor Resort, Kasauli, due to traffic jam, the said vehicle was found there. He alighted down from his car and noted down the number of that car, which was HP29-2512. Thereafter, a quarrel had also taken place between the complainant and the petitioner. As such, the complainant had lodged the FIR, against the petitioner. 5. After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the final report, which is stated to be pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. 6. According to the petitioner, he was neither rash nor negligent, and the accident had taken place due to error of judgment, as such, the matter has been compromised with respondent No.2. 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. 4 2025:HHC:38503 8. When put to notice, respondent No.1-State has filed the status report, mentioning therein the manner, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.2, and the manner, in which, the police has investigated the matter and filed the charge- sheet, which is pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. 9. The petitioner has impleaded the complainant, as respondent No.2. 10. Today, respondent No.2-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 admitted his signatures on the Compromise Deed Annexure P-2. 10. Apart from this, respondent No.2 has also deposed that in view of the compromise, having taken place between him and the petitioner, he has no objection, if the present petition is allowed, as prayed for. 11. In addition to this, respondent No.2 has also shown his voluntariness and willingness to enter into the compromise with the petitioner, by stating that the 5 2025:HHC:38503 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, on oath. 13. Heard. 14. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.2, by lodging the FIR, in question, who initially had levelled the allegations against the petitioner, however, when appeared before this Court, he has submitted that the matter has been compromised between him and the petitioner. 15. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has 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, 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:38503 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, respondent No.2 to live peacefully in the society. 18. Even otherwise, acceptance of the compromise, by this Court, will save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, which, the learned Court would 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.157 of 2023, dated 27.11.2023, registered with Police Station, Dharampur, District Solan, H.P., under Sections 279 and 323 of the IPC and Section 187 & 185 of the M.V. Act, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 7 2025:HHC:38503 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 application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) November 14, 2025(ps) Judge