2025:HHC:17538 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.460 of 2025 Decided on : 04.06.2025 Jatinder Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick and Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocates General, for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 in person with Ms. Shailja Kumari, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner 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.69/2025, dated 27.04.2025 (hereinafter referred to as 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:17538 the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P., under Sections 281, 125(A) and 125(B) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, if any. 2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the basis of the compromise, effected between the petitioner and respondent No.2, who is complainant, as well as, injured, in the accident. 3. As per the case, set up by the petitioner, on the complaint, made by respondent No.2 to the police, FIR in question has been registered against him. 3.1. According to the petitioner, in the complaint, respondent No.2 has stated that he used to go for a walk every day, in Lower Kangar Road and on 27.04.2025, at about 08:00 am, he was going from Lower Kangar to Ghaluwal. When, he reached in front of a shop, owned by one Sh. Sat Pal, a car, which was being driven at a high speed, hit respondent No.2, who was walking on the side of the road, as a result of which, he sustained injuries and fell down and after some time, he came to know about the 3 2025:HHC:17538 name of driver of the said car. Subsequently, respondent No.2 was taken to Regional Hospital, Una for treatment. 3.2. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter, with the intervention of the respectables of the society, the matter has now been compromised between him and respondent No.2, who has lodged the FIR, in question, against him. The Compromise Deed is Annexure P-2. 4. 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. 5. When, put to notice, respondent No.1-State has filed the status report, mentioning therein, the circumstances, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.2, as well as, the manner, in which, the investigation has been conducted, by the police, in this case. 6. The complainant, who has put the criminal machinery into motion, in this case, has been arrayed as respondent No.2. 7. Today i.e. on 04.06.2025, respondent No.2- complainant/injured, appeared before the Court and 4 2025:HHC:17538 deposed, on oath, that on 27.04.2025, an accident had taken place with the vehicle, driven by the petitioner. However, he has categorically deposed that the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, but, the same had taken place due to error of judgment and thereafter, on the basis of his statement, FIR, in question, has been lodged and after registration of the FIR, police has started conducting the investigation. 7.1. Respondent No.2 has further deposed about the compromise, which has taken place, between him and the petitioner. The Compromise Deed is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. 7.2. Not only this, respondent No.2 has also identified his signatures, over the Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2 and 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. He has also deposed that in view of the compromise, he has no objection, if the present petition is allowed, as prayed for. 5 2025:HHC:17538 8. Today, similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner, on oath. 9. Heard. 10. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.2, by lodging the FIR, in question and he is the person, who had allegedly suffered injuries, in the accident, in question. Meaning thereby, respondent No.2 will be the star witness of the prosecution to depose against the petitioner, before the learned trial Court. However, respondent No.2, when appeared, before this Court, has made statement, on oath and has supported the case of the petitioner by deposing that in the said accident, the petitioner was neither rash, nor negligent, but, according to him, the accident, in question, had taken place, due to error of judgment. 11. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations, by stating, on oath, that in the accident, in question, petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, in such situation, the chances of success of prosecution case, against the petitioner, are very bleak. 6 2025:HHC:17538 12. When, the petitioner, as well as, respondent No.2, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2, then, permitting the investigation to continue, would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law. 13. 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, respondent No.2 to live peacefully in the society. 14. 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. 15. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise, Annexure P-2, entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.2. 16. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.69/2025, dated 27.04.2025, registered with Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P., under 7 2025:HHC:17538 Sections 281, 125(A) and 125(B) of the BNS, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, if any. 17. The Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2, and the statements of the parties, shall form part of the judgment. 18. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge June 04, 2025 (Gaurav Thakur)