Himachal Pradesh High Court
Karam Chand & Another vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 14 May, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
( 2025:HHC:14096 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 273 of 2025
Decided on : 14.05.2025
Karam Chand & Another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioners : Mr. Bhisham Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional
Advocate General for respondent
No.1.
Mr. Suneet Verma, 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.03/2021, dated 20.02.2021 (hereinafter referred to as
the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Bagga,
District Solan, H.P., under Sections 451, 323, 504
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 ( 2025:HHC:14096 )
and 506, read with Section 34 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, Arki, District Solan, 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, with the intervention of the
respectables of the society, they have compromised the
matter with respondent No.2.
3 ( 2025:HHC:14096 )
6. The terms and conditions of the compromise
have been reduced into writing, vide compromise deed,
Annexure P1.
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 since, he, respondent No.3
and the petitioners are residents of the same village, he
has compromised the matter. He has also deposed that
the compromise has been effected in order to live
peacefully and to maintain their future cordial relations.
4 ( 2025:HHC:14096 )
10. Respondent No.2, has also deposed that he has
compromised the matter, out of his free will, consent and
without any pressure. He has also admitted his signature
on Annexure P1. He, in unequivocal terms, has deposed
that he has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as
prayed for.
11. Similar type of statements have also been made
by the petitioners and respondent No.3, on oath.
12. Heard.
13. 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, and respondent No.3, who had sustained
injuries in the incident, however, when appeared before
this Court, have exonerated the petitioners from the
allegations.
14. Once, the person, who had put the criminal
machinery into motion, and the person who had sustained
injuries in the incident, have exonerated the petitioners
from the allegations, the chances of success of prosecution
case against the petitioners are not so bright.
5 ( 2025:HHC:14096 )
15. When the parties, have buried all their
disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise
Annexure P1, then, permitting the proceedings to continue
against the petitioners, would be nothing, but, abuse of
process of law.
16. 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
petitioners, as well as, respondents No.2 and 3 to live
peacefully in the society.
17. 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.
18. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the
genuineness of the compromise Annexure P1, entered into
between the parties.
19. Considering all these facts, the petition is
allowed and FIR No.03 of 2021, dated 20.02.2021,
registered with Police Station, Bagga, District Solan, H.P.,
6 ( 2025:HHC:14096 )
under Sections 451, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section
34 of the IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto,
pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be
quashed.
20. The compromise deed, Annexure P1, and the
statements of the parties, recorded in the Court, shall form
part of the judgment.
21. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
( Virender Singh )
Judge
May 14, 2025(ps)
