2025:HHC:44707 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.1217 of 2025 Decided on : 19.12.2025 Deepanshu & Others …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Petitioners in person with Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi & Ms. Divya Rajta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Respondent No.4 in person with Ms. Bhavya, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral). Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.30 of 2025, dated 12.02.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Majra, District Sirmaur, H.P., under Sections 126(2), 118(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, if any. 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:44707 2. The relief of quashing has been sought, on the basis of the compromise, which has taken place between the petitioners and respondent No.4. 3. According to the petitioners, on the statement of respondent No.4, the FIR, in question, has been registered against petitioners. 4. After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and prepared the final report, however, in the meanwhile, the petitioners and respondent No.4, have compromised the matter. 5. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, vide compromise deed, Annexure P-2. 6. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made that the FIR, in question, as well as, proceedings, resultant thereto, if any, may kindly be quashed and set aside, by allowing the petition. 7. When put to notice, respondents No.1 to 3- State have filed the status report, disclosing therein, respondent No.4/complainant has moved a complaint against the petitioners, mentioning therein, that he is 3 2025:HHC:44707 working in Pace Biotech Pharma, Surajpur and Deepanshu (petitioner No.1), was working under him, who has misbeheaved with him, in the office and the matter was closed there. At about 5.00/5.30 p.m., after office hours, in the parking of the Company, Deepanshu (petitioner No.1), along with 2-3 boys, had restrained the complainant to proceed further and caused injuries upon his head with the help of some sharp edged weapon. Thereafter, they fled away from the spot and the complainant was taken to hospital for treatment. 8. Respondent No.4, who, at one point of time, has put the criminal machinery into motion, appeared before this Court and has stated that now, he has compromised the matter with petitioners, out of his free will, consent and without any pressure. He has also admitted his signatures on Annexure P-2. He, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for. 9. Similar type of statements have also been made by the petitioners, on oath. 10. Heard. 4 2025:HHC:44707 11. 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 against petitioners, however, when appeared before this Court, he has deposed that he has compromised the matter with the petitioners. 12. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioners from the allegations, the chances of success of prosecution case against petitioners are not so bright. 13. When the parties, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise Annexure P-2, then, permitting the proceedings to continue against petitioners, would be nothing, but, abuse of process of law. 14. 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 petitioners to live peacefully in the society. 15. Even otherwise, acceptance of the compromise, by this Court, will save the precious judicial time of the 5 2025:HHC:44707 Court, where, the charge-sheet will be filed and the said Court would be in a position to devote such time for the decision of some other serious matters, pending before it. 16. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P-2, entered into between the parties. 17. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.30 of 2025, dated 12.02.2025, registered with Police Station, Majra, District Sirmaur, H.P., under Sections 126(2), 118(1) and 3(5) of the BNS, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, if any, are ordered to be quashed. 18. The compromise deed, An nexure P-2, and the statements of the parties, recorded today, in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 19. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge December 19, 2025(ps)