IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 1277 of 2025 Decided on : 9.1.2026 .

Malkiyat Singh & ors. P …Petitioners Versus H State of H.P. & anr.

…Respondents ___________________________________________

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting?

________________________________________________

For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Addl. A.G., C for respondent No. 1.

Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.

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. 40 of 2023, dated 10.2.2023, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 323, 506, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and Sections 3(1)(R)(s), 3(za) (C) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, with Police Station, Haroli, Distr.ict Una, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, stated to be pending beforeH the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Una, District Una, H.P.

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’).

2. Relief, as claimed for, has been sought on the ground that a scuffle took place between the petitioners and respondent No. 2, regarding serving Gurudwara Baba Davinder Singh Bedi, in Nangal Khurd. Thereafter, on the statement of respondent No. 2, FI R 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 matter has been compromised, in pursuance of compromise, Annexure P-2, as the parties are co- villagers 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, responHdent-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.

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 pen ding adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 7. The person, who has 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 co-villagers.

8. Lastly, respondent No. 2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he does not want to proce.ed further with the matter.

9. Similar type of joint statementH has also been made by the petitioners, on oath.

10. Heard.

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