Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:HHC:17622 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. : 291 of 2025 Decided on : 04.06.2025 Amandeep Singh
…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 Zharaick, Additional Advocate General assisted by HC Ranjeev, Police Station, Amb, District Una, for respondents No.1 to 3. Respondents No.4 and 5 in person with Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge
(oral). PetitionerAmandeep Singh, 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.79/2024, dated 20.06.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:17622 with Police Station, Amb, District Una, H.P., under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Section 187 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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Amb, 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, which has taken place between the petitioner and respondents No.4 and 5. 3. According to the petitioner, on the complaint of respondent No.5, 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
3 2025:HHC:17622 respondents No.4 and 5. The Compromise Deed is Annexure P2. 6. On the basis of the said compromise, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, as prayed for, by 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.5, and the manner, in which, the police has investigated the matter and filed the chargesheet, which is pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. 8. The petitioner has impleaded the complainant, as respondent No.5, and the person, who had received injuries, in the said accident, as respondent No.4. 9. Respondent No.5complainant, 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 P2. He has also submitted that since, in
4 2025:HHC:17622 the accident, 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.4. 10. Apart from this, respondent No.5 has also deposed that in view of the compromise, having taken place between him, respondent No.4 and the petitioner, he has no objection, if the present petition is allowed, as prayed for. 11. In addition to this, respondent No.5 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.4, on oath. 13. Heard. 14. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.5, by lodging the FIR, in question, who initially had levelled the allegations against the petitioner, however, when appeared before this Court,
5 2025:HHC:17622 he has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations, by stating that the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, but the accident had taken place, as a stray animal, had come in front of the vehicle being driven by the petitioner.
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, 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 P2, 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
6 2025:HHC:17622 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 P2, entered into between the parties. 20. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.79 of 2024, dated 20.06.2024, registered with Police Station, Amb, District Una, H.P., under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC and Section 187 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 P2, 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)