Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:HHC:33351 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 713 of 2025 Decided on : 19.09.2025 Aman Negi …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Petitioner in person with Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Rohit Sharma and Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate
General, assisted by HC
Jaivanti No. 81, Police Station Sadar Solan, H.P., for
respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 in person, Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3. Virender Singh, Judge
(oral). Petitioner–Aman Negi has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:33351 for quashing of FIR No. 10/2024, dated 14.01.2024, (hereinafter referred to as ‘FIR in question’) registered under Sections 279, 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act, with Police Station Sadar Solan, District Solan, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), on the basis of the compromise, which is stated to have taken place between the petitioner and respondents No. 2 & 3. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that on 14.01.2024, 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. 3. 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
3 2025:HHC:33351 society and on the basis of compromise, a prayer for quashing of the FIR in question has been made. 4. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, as prayed for. 5. When put to notice, police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 14.01.2024, a telephonic information, from Regional Hospital, Solan, was received in Police Station Sadar Solan that near Mansaar, one vehicle went off the road.
Accordingly, ASI Bhagat Ram, alongwith other police officials reached Regional Hospital Solan to verify the situation, where respondent No. 2 Sudyan Singh, got recorded his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., wherein he disclosed that on 14.01.2024, at about 7:00 pm in the evening, some unknown person informed that a car A/F SKODA T1023HP2212K fell off the road and met with an accident, in which two boys had received injuries, who are being taken to RH Solan. Upon this, he came directly to RH Solan, where petitioner Aman Negi, who is his sister inlaw’s son and his friend Suraj Parmar, were found in a wounded condition. The vehicle was being driven by petitioner Aman Negi. Thereafter, FIR in question has been
4 2025:HHC:33351 registered and the criminal machinery swung into motion. On completion of the investigation, challan against the petitioner has been filed, which is pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 6. Complainant and injured have been impleaded as respondents No. 2 and 3, in this case, who have put appearance along with their Counsel. Respondent No. 2 has made a categorical statement that he received the information regarding the accident and on his statement, police registered the FIR in question, against petitioner Aman Negi. He was not present at the time of accident. Respondent No. 3 (through video conferencing) has made a categorical statement that on 14.01.2024, an accident had taken place involving his vehicle bearing temporary registration No. SKODA T1023HP2212K (A/F). The said vehicle was being driven by petitioner Aman Negi, however, in the said accident, petitioner was neither rash nor negligent. However, on the statement of respondent No. 2, who was not present on the spot, the police registered the FIR in question. Thereafter, the police conducted the
5 2025:HHC:33351 investigation and after the investigation, chargesheet has been filed, which is pending before the learned trial Court. 7. According to respondents No. 2 and 3, the matter has now been compromised, in terms of compromise Annexure P2, which bears their signatures encircled red at point A and B, respectively.
The said compromise is stated to have been effected between the parties out of their sweet free will and without any coercion. 8. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner. 9. Heard. 10. On the basis of above facts, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that there is no previous criminal history of the petitioner, and according to him, the accident in question seems to have taken place due to the error of judgment. As such, it has been prayed that petitioner, as well as, respondents No. 2 & 3, have taken positive steps to settle the dispute and said efforts should be recognized by the Court. 6 2025:HHC:33351
11. When, the person who has put the criminal machinery into motion has deposed, on oath, by stating that the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, but, the accident in question had taken place due to error of
judgment, then, permitting the proceedings against the petitioner to continue would be nothing, but, the abuse of process of law. The chances of success of the case of the prosecution against the petitioner are also not so bright.
12. Moreover, the acceptance of the petition will also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote such time for the decision of some other serious matters.
13. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 10/2024 dated 14.01.2024, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and Section 185 of M.V. Act, registered with Police Station, Sadar Solan, District Solan, H.P., as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending in the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed.
7 2025:HHC:33351
14. The compromise deeds, as well as, statements of the parties, recorded today shall form part of this order.
15. Pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
( Virender Singh ) Judge 19th September, 2025 (Pramod Kumar)