Himachal Pradesh High Court
Kuldeep Singh & Others vs State Of H.P. & Anr on 4 August, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 705 of 2025
Decided on : 4.8.2025
Kuldeep Singh & others
.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & anr.
...Respondents
___________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?
________________________________________________
For the Petitioners : Petitioners in person with
r Mr. K.S.Gill, Advocate.
For the Respondents :Ms. Ranjna Patial, Dy. A.G.,
for respondent No. 1.
Respondent No. 2 in person
with Mr. Pankaj Mehta,
Advocate.
Virender Singh, Judge (oral)
The petitioners have filed the present petition,
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
B.N.S.S.) for quashing of FIR No. 106 of 2022, dated
22.6.2022 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in
question’), registered under Sections 341, 323, 504,
506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:28:27 :::CIS
2
referred to as ‘the IPC‘) with Police Station, Dehra,
District Kangra, H.P., as well as, the proceedings
resultant thereto, stated to be pending before the
.
Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as
‘the trial Court’).
2. The factual position, as emerges from the
complainant/respondent
r to
record is that on 21.6.2022, at about 7:15 p.m.,
No. 2 got recorded his
statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C., before the
Police of Police Station, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P.
mentioning therein that his neighbour requested him
to take him to RPGMC, Tanda, where his wife has
been referred to, for treatment, upon which, he
alongwith his neighbour Kamal, left for RPGMC,
Tanda, in his vehicle No. HP 36C-9925. When, he was
on his way to the hospital, the petitioners, who were in
vehicle No. HP 01D 7618, prevented them. Thereafter,
a scuffle took place between the
complainant/respondent No. 2 and the accused
::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:28:27 :::CIS
3
persons. Thereafter, on the statement of respondent
No. 2, FIR in question has been lodged against the
petitioners. After registration of the FIR, Police has
.
conducted investigation in the matter and filed charge
sheet against the petitioners, which is stated to be
pending in the learned trial Court.
3. It is also the case of the parties that now, the
compromise,
r Annexureto
matter has been compromised, in pursuance of
P-2, as the parties are
neighbours, and residing in the same locality, and
want to maintain their cordial relations, in future.
4. On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the
present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, as
well as, proceedings resultant thereto, has been made.
5. When put to notice, respondent-State has
filed status report, disclosing therein, the factual
position, about the manner, in which, the FIR in
question has been registered and criminal machinery
swung into motion.
::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:28:27 :::CIS
4
6. It is the further case of respondent-
State that after completion of investigation, report
under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. has been filed, which
.
is pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court.
7. The person, who had put criminal machinery
into motion, by making statement under Section 154
Cr. P.C., before the Police, i.e. respondent No. 2 has
appeared in Court today and has made a statement,
on oath, about the manner, in which, he has lodged
the FIR in question and factum of the compromise,
which has been effected, between the parties, in order
to maintain cordial relations between him, and the
petitioners, as they are neighbours.
8. Lastly, respondent No. 2, in unequivocal
terms, has deposed that he does not want to proceed
further with the matter.
9. Similar type of joint statement has also been
made by the petitioners, on oath.
10. Heard.
::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:28:27 :::CIS
5
11. Complainant/respondent No. 2 has
categorically stated, in his statement, on oath, that the
compromise has been effected between the parties, in
.
order to maintain their cordial relations, in future.
12. In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-2,
which bears the signatures of petitioners, and
respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 does not want to
proceed further with the case and has no objection, in
case, the FIR in question, as well as, the proceedings
resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial
Court, are quashed and the present petition is
allowed.
13. Moreover, when, the parties have settled the
dispute with regard to FIR in question, then the
compromise, which has been entered into between the
parties, annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2,
should be honoured by this Court, as no useful
purpose would be served, by keeping the proceedings
alive.
::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:28:27 :::CIS
6
14. The primary purpose of law is to maintain
peace in the society and when, the parties to the lis,
i.e. petitioners, and respondent No. 2, have buried
.
all their disputes and compromised the matter, then,
the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising
out of FIR in question, lodged by respondent No. 2,
would certainly amount to abuse of the process of
law.
15. to
Acceptance of the compromise would also save
the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, as,
the learned trial Court would be in a position to devote
such time, for deciding some other serious disputes,
pending before it.
16. Considering all these facts, the present
petition is allowed and FIR in question, as well as,
proceedings consequent thereto, pending adjudication
before the learned trial Court, are quashed.
17. The statements of the parties and the
compromise, Annexure P-2, be read as part of the
judgment.
::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:28:27 :::CIS
7
18. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,
also stands disposed of.
.
(Virender Singh)
Judge
August 4, 2025
Kalpana
r to
::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 21:28:27 :::CIS