2026:HHC:37907 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 644 of 2026 Date of decision: 07.09.2026. Prem Lal ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & another ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ankit Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Prashant Sen, DAG, for respondent No.1. Mr. Munish Datwalia, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Chirag Bhanu Singh, Judge (Oral): The petitioner, Prem Lal, has preferred the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, seeking the quashing of FIR No. 80 of 2012, registered on 06.05.2012 at Police Station, Barmana, District Bilaspur, H.P. under Sections 341, 354, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Initially, the present petition had been filed on the premise that charges against the petitioner had come to be framed before the learned JMFC, Bilaspur, which came to be challenged in revision before the learned Additional Sessions 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- Judge, Bilaspur vide Criminal Revision No. 23 of 2016. Though, the said revision was dismissed on 22.04.2019, however, the matter had been shown as disposed off, vide order dated 18.09.2017. The petitioner had downloaded the screenshot of the same from the e-Courts portal vide case number 81662/2013. The petitioner, as a result, had also applied for certified copy from the Copying Agency. 3. However, strangely, on 20.04.2026, the petitioner received summons from the learned JMFC, Bilaspur. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred the present petition inter-alia contending that the learned JMFC, Bilaspur had no jurisdiction to revoke the matter in view of the specific bar under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was further averred that the right to speedy trial was an integral and essential component of his fundamental right and the same has been infringed, since the FIR had been registered as long back as in the year 2012. 5. It was further averred that since the occurrence was a minor skirmish, the petitioner could not be allowed to face the criminal proceedings for years at end and hence the present petition. 6. The State while contesting the proceedings has inter-alia raised preliminary objections vis-à-vis the -3- maintainability and estoppel. On merits, the contention of the State is that proper investigations have been conducted by the investigating agency and since a cognizable offence was found to have been committed, the FIR had come to be registered against the petitioner. Not only this, the evidence collected during investigation has been duly assessed by the courts and charges have already been framed, which had further been assailed by the petitioner himself, by way of a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. 7. However, now it transpires that during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, the parties with the intervention of the respectable members of the society and the villagers have amicably settled/compromised the dispute. In this behalf, complainant Ram Dai has filed an affidavit of no objection too. 8. Today, both the parties are present in the Court. The complainant Ram Dai, in unequivocal terms, has stated that a verbal skirmish had taken place between the parties. In fact, she has even forgotten whether they had some verbal fight on that day. The FIR had come to be registered by someone else at her behest and now she does not intend to prosecute the complaint against the accused. So is the version of the accused. -4- Separate statements of the parties have been recorded and placed on record. 9. Having heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, suffice it to say that not only have the parties buried the hatchet once and for all, but have forgotten even the genesis of the occurrence. Reading of the complaint Annexure P-1 also shows that it was nothing but a verbal skirmish. 10. Admittedly, the FIR had come to be registered in the year 2012 and more than 14 years having elapsed and keeping in view the fact that the parties too do not intend to carry on the litigation any further, no effective purpose is going to be served in letting the FIR continue till posterity. 11. The quashing of proceedings on the basis of settlement though must not tantamount to abuse of the process of law. The aforesaid preposition already stands answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303. It is admittedly not a case that the alleged crime committed by the accused/petitioner did not have any harmful effects on the public and did not have any element of wrong doing which seriously endangered or threatened the well being of the society at large. -5- 12. Therefore, keeping in view the entire gamut of circumstances discussed hereinabove and the fact that the parties have themselves decided to bury the hatchet, the FIR in question is ordered to be quashed and set aside on the ground of settlement between the parties. Compromise deed and the affidavits filed by the parties be made the part of the record. As a sequel thereto, FIR No. 80 of 2012 dated 06.05. 2012 registered in Police Station, Barmana, District Bilaspur, H.P. ordered to be quashed and set aside. 13. The petition is disposed off accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Chirag Bhanu Singh) Judge 7th September, 2026. (kck)