Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On : 25.08.2025 vs State Of H.P. & Anr on 25 August, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
2025:HHC:29001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 735 of 2025
.
Decided on : 25.08.2025
Joginder Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioners : Petitioners in person with Mr.
Vishal Verma, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr.
Mohinder Zharaick Additional
Advocates General, with Mr.
Rohit Sharma and Ms. Ranjna
Patial, Deputy Advocates General
for respondent No.1/ State.
Respondent No. 2 in person
with Mr. Hitender Thakur,
Advocate.
Virender Singh, Judge
Petitioners have approached this Court, under
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 2025:HHC:29001
2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'), for quashing of FIR
No. 17/2020 dated 17.03.2020, registered under Sections
.
353, 332, 504, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter
referred to as "FIR in question") with Police Station Renuka
Ji, District Sirmaur, H.P., as well as, the proceedings
resultant thereto, which are pending in the Court of
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nahan, District
Sirmaur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court"),
on the basis of the compromise, which is stated to have
taken place between the petitioners and respondent No. 2.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the FIR in
question was registered at the instance of respondent No.
2, who has alleged that on 17.03.2020, he (respondent No.
2-complainant) was driving bus No. HP18A-5703 from
Nahan to Solan via Dadahu route, Hitendra Kumar is the
conductor in this bus. At about 9:50, when he (respondent
No. 2) reached Dadahu Bus-Stand, the bus was not at the
right place, so petitioner No. 1 (conductor of Ved Bus), first
abused him (respondent No. 2), then when he (respondent
No. 2) protested, the petitioner No. 1, started beating him.
Driver, owner and two other people were also involved in
3 2025:HHC:29001
this. Thereafter, respondent No. 2, requested to take legal
action against them. Respondent No. 2 came to know their
.
names as Sohan Singh bus driver (petitioner No. 2) and
Joginder Singh bus conductor (petitioner No. 1). Due to
their beatings, respondent No. 2 got injuries on his left
cheek and scratches on his neck. All the above have
obstructed respondent No. 2-complainant from his official
duty, in which they have threatened to kill him.
3. On the basis of above facts, police registered the
FIR in question and criminal machinery swung into
motion.
4. After completion of the investigation, police has
filed the charge sheet, which is pending before the trial
Court.
5. As per the case of the petitioners, during the
pendency of the proceedings, before the learned trial Court,
matter has been settled between the parties, as, they all
are from the same profession. The terms and conditions of
the compromise have been reduced into writing and the
same has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2.
4 2025:HHC:29001
6. On the basis of compromise, Annexure P-2, a
prayer has been made to allow the petition, by quashing
.
the FIR in question.
7. When put to notice, respondent No. 1/State has
filed the status report, disclosing therein, the manner, in
which, the FIR in question has been registered and how
the police had conducted the investigation and filed the
charge sheet against the petitioners, which is pending
before the learned trial Court.
8. Respondent No. 2, who at one point of time,
had levelled the allegations against the petitioners, when
appeared before this Court today, has made his statement,
exonerating the petitioners from the allegations, which
have been levelled against them, affirming that the FIR in
question was lodged by respondent No. 2 (Kamal Chand)
on account of a trivial matter and now, matter has been
compromised between them, as petitioners and respondent
No. 2 are of the same profession. The said compromise has
been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2.
5 2025:HHC:29001
9. Respondent No. 2 has also deposed that he has
no objection, if the petition is allowed, in view of the
.
compromise and the FIR in question is quashed.
10. Similar type of statement has also been made
by the petitioners jointly.
11. Heard.
12. In view of the statements of the parties,
especially the statement of respondent No. 2, who at one
point of time, had lodged the FIR in question, but, when
appeared in the witness box has exonerated the
petitioners, by stating that the matter has been
compromised between them, as they are of the same
profession i.e. transportation and they want to live
peacefully in the society and in order to maintain their
future cordial relations, this Court is fully satisfied with
regard to the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P-
2.
13. As per the stand taken by the parties i.e.
petitioners, as well as, respondent No. 2, they are not
strangers but are of the same area.
6 2025:HHC:29001
14. The primary purpose of law is to maintain
peace and harmony in the society. When, the petitioners
.
and respondent No.2 have buried all their disputes, by
compromising the matter, then, permitting the proceedings
to continue, before the learned trial Court, would be
nothing, but, abuse of the process of law.
15. Even otherwise, acceptance of the compromise,
by this Court, will save the precious judicial time of the
learned trial Court, which, the learned trial Court will be in
a position to devote for the decision of some other serious
matters, pending before it.
16. Considering all these facts, the present petition
is allowed and FIR No. 17/2020, dated 17.03.2020
registered with Police Station Rainuka Ji, District Sirmaur,
H.P., under Sections 353, 332, 504, 506, 34 of IPC, as well
as, the proceedings, resultant thereto, pending before the
learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed.
17. The compromise deed, Annexure P-2, and the
statements of the parties, recorded today, shall form part
of the judgment.
7 2025:HHC:29001
18. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
.
( Virender Singh )
Judge
August 25, 2025
(Pramod)
r to
