Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:HHC:17623 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.: 320 of 2025 Decided on : 04.06.2025 Kuldeep Singh @ Phenu …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Mohinder
Zhairack, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Respondents No.4 and 5 in person with Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge
(oral). PetitionerKuldeep Singh @ Phenu, has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.61/2020, dated 27.07.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Bangana, District Una, H.P., under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:17623 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Sections 181 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘M.V. Act’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Una, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). 2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties. 3. According to the petitioner, on the complaint of respondent No.4, the FIR, in question, has been registered against him. 4. After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the final report, which is stated to be pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. 5. According to the petitioner, during the pendency of the case, he has compromised the matter with respondents No.4 and 5. The Compromise Deed is Annexure P3. 6. On the basis of the said compromise, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, as prayed for, by
3 2025:HHC:17623 quashing the FIR, in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court. 7.
When put to notice, respondents No.1 to 3 State has filed the status report, mentioning therein the manner, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.4, and the manner, in which, the police has investigated the matter and filed final report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, which is pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. 8. The petitioner has impleaded the complainant, as respondent No.4, and the person, who had received injuries, in the said accident, as respondent No.5. 9. Respondent No.4complainant, appeared before the Court and deposed, on oath, that on his statement, the FIR, in question, has been lodged against the petitioner. He has also admitted his signatures on the Compromise Deed Annexure P3. He has also submitted that since petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, as such, with the intervention of the respectables of the society, the matter has been compromised between him, petitioner and respondent No.5. 4 2025:HHC:17623
10. Apart from this, respondent No.4 has also deposed that in view of the compromise, having taken place between him, respondent No.5 and the petitioner, he has no objection, if the present petition is allowed, as prayed for. 11. In addition to this, respondent No.4 has also shown his voluntariness and willingness to enter into the compromise with the petitioner, by stating that the compromise has been effected out of his free will, consent and without any pressure. 12. Similar type of statements have been made by the petitioner, as well as respondent No.5, on oath. 13. Heard. 14. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.4, by lodging the FIR, in question, who initially had levelled the allegations against the petitioner, however, when appeared before this Court, he has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations. 12.
Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion and the person, who had sustained injuries, has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations,
5 2025:HHC:17623 the chances of success of prosecution case against the petitioner are not so bright. 16. When the parties, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide compromise Annexure P3, then, permitting the proceedings to continue against the petitioner, would be nothing, but, abuse of process of law. 17. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society. Acceptance of the petition, would also give another opportunity to the petitioner, as well as, respondents No.4 and 5 to live peacefully in the society. 18. 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. 19. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P3, entered into between the parties. 6 2025:HHC:17623
20. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.61 of 2020, dated 27.7.2020, registered with Police Station, Bangana, District Una, H.P., under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC and Section 181 and 196 of MV Act, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 21. The compromise deed, Annexure P3, and the statements of the parties, recorded in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 22. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge June 04, 2025(ps)