2026:HHC:2479 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. : 1229 of 2025 Decided on : 07.01.2026 Rohit …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. Amar Dev Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat & Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General, with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Respondents No.3 in person with Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. 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.124 of 2025, dated 25.09.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 281, and 125(a) and 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rohru 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 he was posted as driver in HRTC Depot Rohru and was deployed in bus No.HP10A7487. On 25.09.2025, while driving the said bus, enroute Rohru to Devidhar, when, he reached at Lambakhatal, near Harsukh Hotel, then, from Rohru side, a pick-up, applied for, being driven by petitioner came there and struck against the bus being driven by me. Consequently, Deepika sustained injuries, 3 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 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, 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 instance of respondent No.2, and the manner, in which, the police has investigated the matter and filed the charge- 4 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 respondent No.3. 10. Respondent No.2-complainant, appeared before the Court on 30.12.2025 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 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, as well as, by respondent No.3, on oath. 13. Heard. 5 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, 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. 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 and 3 to live peacefully in the society. 6 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. 22. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) January 07, 2026(ps) Judge