IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No. 1224 of 20.25

Decided on : 17.12.2025

Yogesh Kumar H

…Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. & ors. t

…Respondents

___________________________________________

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?

________________________________________________

For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr.

Naresh Kaul, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma,

Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rohit Sharma,

i Dy.A.G.

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in person with Ms. Aarti Thakur,

Advocate.

Virender Singh, Judge (oral)

The petitioner has filed the present petition,

under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.) for quashing of FIR No. 67 of 2025, dated 14.6.2025,

under Sections 281, 125(A), 125 (B) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNS’) registered with Police Station, Tahliwal, District Una, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 3, Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’).

2. Brief facts, as borne out from the record are that on 14.6.202u5 at about 6:07 p.m., a telephonic information woas received that on Bathdi-Tahliwal road near GCurplah liquor vend, an accident had taken place, upon which, a police team reached at the spot. Respondent No. 3 Sukhjinder Singh got recorded his statement under Section 173 of BNSS that on the Haforesaid date, respondent No. 2 was trying to cross the road, and suddenly, a motorcycle, bearing registration No. HP 20B-0490 hit him.

3. Thereafter, on the statement of respondent No.

3, FIR in question was registered.

4. During investigation of the case, the matter has been compromised between the parties.

5. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, and the terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, as Annexure C-5.

6. On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, has been made.

7. When putu to notice, respondent No. 1 has filed the status reoport, disclosing therein, the manner, in which, Cthe FIR in question has been registered and criminal machinery swung into motion.

8. It is the further case of respondent No. 1 that after completion of investigation, report under Section H173(2) of Cr. P.C. has been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court and the matter is stated to be pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court.

9. Today, respondent No. 3, who, has put criminal machinery into motion, has appeared in Court 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. According to him, there was no negligence on part of the petitioner, in the accident in question, as the same had taken place, due to the fact that respondent No. 2 was trying to cross the road, without looking for the traffic on the road.

10. Lastly, respondent No. 3, in unequivocal terms, has deposued that he does not want to proceed further with othe matter. He has also stated that he has no objeCction, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question and the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed.

H11. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner.

12. Heard.

13. From the facts, as mentioned in the petition, as well as, the factual position, as narrated in the status report, this Court is of the view that the matter has now been compromised, between the parties.

14. The person, who has put the criminal machinery into motion, by lodging FIR in question, when, appeared before this Court, has stated that the compromise has been effected between the parties. In addition to this, he has exon