Suresh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Anr.

2025:HHC:37321

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

	Cr.MMO No.	1032 of 2025
	Decided on	: 06.11.2025
Suresh Kumar		…Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. & Anr.		…Respondents

¶4

Coram

¶5

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the petitioner	:	Petitioner Shivom Va	in person, with Mr. shista, Advocate.
For the respondents	:	Mr. H.S. Advocate responden	Rawat, Additional General, for t No.1/State.
		Responde	nt No. 2 in person
		with Mr.	Vishwas Kaushal,
		Advocate.

¶8

Virender Singh, Judge

¶9

Petitioner Suresh Kumar has approached this Court, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No. 40 of 2021 dated 20.06.2021, under Sections 353, 332, 506 of Indian Penal Code,

¶10

1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶11

2

¶12

2025:HHC:37321

¶13

(hereinafter referred to as “FIR in question”) registered with Police Station Sangrah, District Sirmour, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmour at Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the learned trial Court”), on the basis of the compromise, which is stated to have taken place between the petitioner and respondent No. 2.

¶14

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that on 20.06.2021, on the statement of respondent No. 2, FIR in question was registered against him, in which, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted charge sheet before the learned trial Court. It is his further case that during the pendency of those proceedings, matter has now been compromised with the intervention of the respectable members of the society and on the basis of compromise, a prayer for quashing of the FIR has been made.

¶15

When put to notice, police filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 20.06.2021, respondent No. 2 Dhanvir Singh appeared before the police and moved

¶16

3 2025:HHC:37321

¶17

a complaint, disclosing therein, that he is Pump-attendant in I.P.H. Department, at Sangrah I.P.H. On 19.06.2021, J.E. Santosh Sharma, told him that Kadiyana pump house is faulty and asked him to get it repaired. On next day, i.e. 20.06.2021, he along with Rahul Sharma, Para Multi Worker, went to Pump House Kadiyana. At around 11:30 am, Suresh Kumar (petitioner), who is JBT, who works near the pump house, told him to stop the water, as his land is falling. The pump was out of order for two days, causing water shortages, and when he did not turn off the water, Suresh Kumar (petitioner) reached the pump house with a stick in his hand, abusing him and threatening to kill him. Suresh Kumar (petitioner) gave beatings to him with the stick, leaving a bluish mark on his left leg. If, Rahul had not rescued him from Suresh Kumar (petitioner), he could have killed him. On the basis of above facts, the police registered the FIR. The complainant was medically examined. Accused was arrested and bound down under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, on the completion of investigation, police has filed the chargesheet, which is pending before the learned trial Court.

¶18

4 2025:HHC:37321

¶19

Complainant has been impleaded as respondent No. 2 in this case, who has put appearance along with his Counsel. Respondent No. 2 has made a categorical statement that he and petitioner are neighbours and on account of scuffle, he had lodged the FIR against the petitioner, upon which the police registered the FIR in question and conducted the investigation. After the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed, which is pending before the learned trial Court.

¶20

According to respondent No. 2, with the intervention of respectables of the society, the matter has now been compromised in terms of compromise Annexure P-3, which bears his signatures encircled red at point A. The said compromise is stated to have been effected between the parties in order to maintain their cordial relations. He has also deposed that the compromise has been effected, out of his sweet free will and without any coercion.

¶21

Similar type of statement has also been made

¶22

by the petitioner.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

5 2025:HHC:37321

¶25

Respondent No. 2, who, at one point of time, had alleged against the petitioner and on his statement, FIR in question has been registered against the petitioner, today appears before the Court, and reiterated the said factual position, however, he has stated that now, with the intervention of respectable persons of the society, the matter has been compromised. This Court is satisfied with regard to the genuineness of the compromise between the parties and it seems that the compromise is being effected in order to maintain future cordial relations.

¶26

The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society. When, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, then, permitting the proceedings to continue, before the learned trial Court, would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law.

¶27

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.

¶28

6 2025:HHC:37321

¶29

Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 40 of 2021, dated 20.06.2021, registered with Police Station Sangrah, District Sirmour, H.P., under Sections 353, 332, 506 of the IPC, as well as, the proceedings, resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed.

¶30

The compromise deed, Annexure P-3 and the statements of the parties, recorded today, shall form part of the judgment.

¶31

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶32

( Virender Singh ) Judge

¶33

06^th November, 2025 (Pramod)

Suresh Kumar v. State of Hp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar v. State of Hp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Monika Vs Ajay Kumar

Harpal Singh Vs Ranveer Singh

Rakesh Kumar @ Shanu Vs State of Hp

Kusum Kumari Vs Dharampal

Usha Vs the State of Hp and Others

Malkan Devi Vs State of Hp