1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 274 of 2025 Decided on : 15.5.2025 Komal Kumari …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. …Respondents ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Piyush Dhanotia, Advocate. For the Respondents :Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Respondents No. 2 and 3 in person with Mr. Rajat Kumar, 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. 143 of 2022, dated 1.12.2022, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal 2 Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), registered with Police Station, Gagret, District Una, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned Addl. CJM, Court No. 1, Amb, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’). 2. Relief, as claimed for, has been sought on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3 in order to maintain their cordial relations. 3. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which has been annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-3. 4. 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. 5. When put to notice, respondent No. 1 has filed the status report, disclosing therein, the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and criminal machinery swung into motion. 3 6. It is the further case of respondent No. 1 that after completion of investigation, report under Section 173(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. 7. Today, respondent No. 2, has appeared in Court and has made a statement, on oath, about the manner, in which, his wife Srishta Devi (now deceased) 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 petitioner. 8. Lastly, respondent No. 2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he does not want to proceed further with the matter, as, the parties want to live in peace and harmony in future. He has also stated that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question and the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial 4 Court, are quashed. Respondent No. 3 (injured) has also deposed on the similar lines. 9. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner. The petitioner has deposed that she was neither rash nor negligent while driving the vehicle in question, but the accident had taken place due to error of judgment. 10. Heard. 11. 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. 12. 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. Lastly, he has submitted that he has no objection, in case the present petition is allowed. 13. In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-3, which bears the signatures of petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3, respondent No. 2 does not 5 want to proceed further with the case and has specifically stated that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 14. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace in the society and when, the parties to the lis, i.e. petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3, have buried their disputes and compromised the matter, then, the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of the FIR in question, lodged by respondent No. 2, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law. 15. Acceptance of the compromise will help the parties to live peacefully in the society and also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, as the learned trial Court will 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, 6 proceedings resultant thereto, pending adjudication before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 17. The statements, so recorded, and the compromise, Annexure P-3, be read as part of the judgment. 18. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge May 15, 2025 Kalpana