Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, prayer has been made by the petitioners-accused for quashing of FIR No.06 of 2026, dated 17.01.2026, under Sections 299 , 126(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, registered at Police Station Sangrah, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, along with consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law, on the basis of compromise.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be

lodged at the behest of respondent No.4-Mr. Parvesh Giri (hereinafter, ‘complainant’), who alleged that for last five years, he has been living as a priest in 13 Madhi Junna Akhada, presently residing at Lagnu Madh-Bagh, and on 14.01.2026, had gone to Siun for purchasing grocery items. He alleged that while he was coming back from the shop of Bittu, petitioners herein obstructed his path and forcefully cut his hair and beard. He also alleged that accused, named in the FIR, also extended threats to do away with his life and as such, appropriate action in accordance with law be taken against them. In afore background, FIR, detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the petitioners.

3. Though after completion of investigation, Police has already presented Challan in the competent Court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties to the lis have decided to settle the dispute amicably inter se them by way of compromise placed on record and as such, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to quash and set aside the FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending before the competent Court of law.

4. In terms of order dated 31.03.2026, respondent-State has filed status report, wherein factum of compromise has been duly acknowledged. In terms of afore order, complainant has also come present and is being represented by Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate. He states on oath that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered

into compromise with the petitioners/accused, whereby they have decided to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. He states that since FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings is a result of misunderstanding, coupled with the fact that petitioners have already apologized for their misconduct and have undertaken not to repeat such act in future, he does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case aforesaid FIR as well as consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law are quashed and set aside and the petitioners are acquitted of the offences alleged in the FIR. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, he also admits his signatures thereupon. His statement made on oath is taken on record.

5. Having heard statements made on oath by complainant, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings, sought to be quashed, are allowed to sustain, rather that would unnecessarily widen the rift inter se petitioners and complainant. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of petitioners-accused are very remote and bleak on account of the amicable settlement arrived inter se parties and as such, this Court may pass appropriate orders.

6. The question which now needs consideration is whether FIR in question can be orde