Himachal Pradesh High Court
Narotam Salaria & Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another on 14 May, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
( 2025:HHC:13965 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 269 of 2025
Decided on : 14.05.2025
Narotam Salaria & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Another ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioners : Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate
General for respondent No.1.
Mr. Arthav Gharaik, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
Virender Singh, Judge (oral).
Petitioners have filed the present petition, under
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
(hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'), for quashing of FIR
No.123, dated 24.08.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the
FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Damtal,
District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 341, 323, 325, 147,
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 ( 2025:HHC:13965 )
148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to
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, Indora, District Kangra,
H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court').
2. The relief of quashing has been sought, on the
basis of the compromise, which has taken place between
the petitioners and respondent No.2.
3. According to the petitioners, on the statement
of respondent No.2, the FIR, in question, has been
registered against them.
4. After registration of the FIR, the police has
conducted the investigation and submitted the final report,
which is now pending adjudication before the learned trial
Court.
5. According to the petitioners, during the
pendency of the aforesaid case, they have compromised the
matter with respondent No.2, in order to live peacefully in
the society and to maintain their future cordial relations.
3 ( 2025:HHC:13965 )
6. The terms and conditions of the compromise
have been reduced into writing, vide compromise deed,
Annexure P2.
7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has
been made that the FIR, in question, as well as,
proceedings, resultant thereto, pending before the learned
trial Court, may kindly be quashed and set aside, by
allowing the petition.
8. When put to notice, respondent No.1State has
filed the status report, mentioning therein the
circumstances, in which, the FIR, in question, has been
registered, at the instance of respondent No.2, as well as,
the manner, in which, the investigation has been
conducted, by the police, in this case.
9. Respondent No.2, who, at one point of time, has
put the criminal machinery into motion, appeared before
this Court and has stated that now, he has compromised
the matter with the petitioners, out of his free will, consent
and without any pressure. He has also admitted his
signature on Annexure P2. He, in unequivocal terms, has
4 ( 2025:HHC:13965 )
deposed that he has no objection, in case, the petition is
allowed, as prayed for.
10. Similar type of statement has also been made
by the petitioners, on oath.
11. Heard.
12. 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 petitioners, however, when appeared before this Court,
he has exonerated the petitioners from the allegations.
13. Once, the person, who had put the criminal
machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioners
from the allegations, the chances of success of prosecution
case against the petitioners are not so bright.
14. When the parties, have buried all their
disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise
Annexure P2, then, permitting the proceedings to continue
against the petitioners, would be nothing, but, abuse of
process of law.
15. The primary purpose of law is to maintain
peace and harmony in the society. Acceptance of the
5 ( 2025:HHC:13965 )
petition, would also give another opportunity to the
petitioners, as well as, respondent No.2 to live peacefully in
the society.
16. 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.
17. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the
genuineness of the compromise Annexure P2, entered into
between the parties.
18. Considering all these facts, the petition is
allowed and FIR No.123 of 2020, dated 24.08.2020,
registered with Police Station, Damtal, District Kangra,
H.P., under Sections 341, 323, 325, 147, 148, 149 of the
IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending
before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed.
19. The compromise deed, Annexure P2, and the
statements of the parties, recorded in the Court, shall form
part of the judgment.
6 ( 2025:HHC:13965 )
20. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
( Virender Singh )
Judge
May 14, 2025(ps)
