2026:HHC:3048 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. : 44 of 2026 Decided on : 09.01.2026 Ashish …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Rajat Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat & Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocates General, for respondent No.1. Respondents No.2 to 4 in person with Mr. Annieket Bhaik, 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.11 of 2021, dated 11.02.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:3048 as the ‘IPC’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chopal, Camp at Theog, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). 2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties. 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 11.02.2021, at about 8.00 a.m., she, along with her husband Puran Chand and sons Ankit and Anshul, had gone to Theog, in their vehicle, bearing registration No.HP09C 9175, in order to provide medical treatment to Anshul. At the relevant time, vehicle was being driven by petitioner Ashish. At about 2.00 p.m., when, they were on their way to their village, then, at a place known as Deem Kainchi, due to snow fall, the vehicle skidded off the road. In the said accident, the petitioner was neither rash nor 3 2026:HHC:3048 negligent, but, the same had taken place due to the skidding of the vehicle from the road due to snow fall. In the said accident, Puran Chand and Ankit, had sustained injuries. As such, the FIR, in question, has been registered against the petitioner. 5. After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the charge- sheet before the learned trial Court. 6. According to the petitioner, he was neither rash nor negligent, and due to the snow fall, the vehicle skidded off the road and the accident had taken place, 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, which are pending before the learned trial Court. 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 4 2026:HHC:3048 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 and the injured as respondents No.3 and 4. 10. Today, respondent No.2-complainant, appeared before the Court and deposed, on oath, that on her statement, the FIR, in question, has been lodged against the petitioner. She has also admitted her 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 her and the petitioner, she has no objection, if the present petition is allowed, as prayed for. 11. In addition to this, respondent No.2 has also shown her voluntariness and willingness to enter into the compromise with the petitioner, by stating that the compromise has been effected out of her free will, consent and without any pressure. 5 2026:HHC:3048 12. Similar type of statements have been made by the petitioner, as well as, by respondents No.3 to 5, 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, she has submitted that the matter has been compromised between her and the petitioner. 15. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, and the person, who has received injuries, have 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 2026:HHC:3048 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, respondents No.2 to 5 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, in question, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 21. The compromise deed, Annexure P-2, and the statements of the parties, recorded in this Court, shall form part of the judgment. 7 2026:HHC:3048 22. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) January 09, 2026(ps) Judge