1 2026:HHC:1758 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 1245 of 2025 Decided on : 6.1.2026 Suresh Kumar …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. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Dy.A.G., for respondent No. 1. Respondents No. 2 and 3 in person with Ms. Suhani Gautam, 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. 84 of 2022, dated 20.5.2022, under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code 2 2026:HHC:1758 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) registered with Police Station, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’). 2. Brief facts, as borne out from the record, are that on 19.5.2022 when, complainant (respondent No. 2) was returning to Home from Dehra, alongwith his cousin, in his vehicle No. HP36C-3593, then, all of a sudden, one Mahindra vehicle No. HP36D-6923 came from opposite direction and dashed against his vehicle. In the said accident, complainant (respondent No. 2) and his cousin sustained injuries. 3. Thereafter, on the statement of respondent No. 2, FIR in question was registered. Criminal machinery swung into motion. After completion of investigation, challan was filed, which is pending before the learned trial Court. 4. During pendency of the case, the matter has been compromised between the parties. 3 2026:HHC:1758 5. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, and the terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, as Annexure P-3. 6. On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, has been made. 7. When put to notice, respondent No. 1 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. It is the further case of respondent No. 1 that after completion of investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. has been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court and the matter is stated to be pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 9. Today, respondent No. 2, who, has put criminal machinery into motion, has appeared in Court and has made a statement, on oath, about the 4 2026:HHC:1758 manner, in which, he has lodged the FIR in question and factum of the compromise, which has been effected, between the parties. He has further deposed that the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent in driving, but the accident in question has taken place due to the fact that a stray animal came in front of his vehicle and in order to save it, he turned the vehicle and the accident in question had taken place. 10. Lastly, respondent No. 2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he does not want to proceed further with the matter. He has also stated that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question and the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 11. Similar type of statements have also been made by the petitioner and father of respondent No. 3, as respondent No. 3 has executed General Power of Attorney (Ext. PA), in his favour. Petitioner has deposed that he was neither rash nor negligent while driving the car in question, but the accident has taken 5 2026:HHC:1758 place due to the fact that a stray animal came in front of his vehicle and in order to save it, he turned the vehicle and the accident in question took place. 12. Heard. 13. 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. 14. The person, who has 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. In addition to this, he has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations of rash and negligent driving, by deposing that he was not negligent while driving and the accident in question had taken place, due to the fact that all of a sudden, a stray animal has come in front of the vehicle of the petitioner. Lastly, he has submitted that he has no objection, in case the present petition is allowed. 6 2026:HHC:1758 15. In view of the compromise having been effected, between the parties, respondent Nos. 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. 16. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace in the society and when, the parties to the lis, i.e. petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3, have buried their disputes and compromised the matter, then, the continuation of 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. 17. Acceptance of the compromise will help the parties to live peacefully in the society and also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, as the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote such time, for deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it. 7 2026:HHC:1758 18. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending adjudication before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 19. The statements, so recorded, and the compromise Annexure P-3 be read as part of the judgment. 20. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge January 6, 2026 Kalpana