1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 480 of 2025 Decided on : 18.6.2025 Aadarsh Kumar & anr. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & anr. …Respondents ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Petitioners : Petitioner in person with Mr. Vikrant Thakur and Ms. Shivani Priya, Advocates. For the Respondents :Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Respondents No. 2 and 3 in person with Ms. Supriya Chaudhary, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Cr. M.P. No. 2437 of 2025 By way of present application, indulgence of this Court has been sought to delete the name of petitioner No. 2, from the memo of parties. 2 2. As per the application, petitioner No. 2 has only been added in this case, on the ground that he is one of the signatories to the compromise, effected between the parties, and he has neither been arrayed as party before the learned trial Court nor he has any concern whatsoever with the offence in question. 3. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to delete the name of respondent No. 2. The prayer, so made, has not been opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Accordingly, the application, under consideration, is allowed and name of petitioner No.2 is ordered to be deleted from the array of parties. Memo of parties be taken on record. The application is, thus, disposed of. Cr. MMO No. 480 of 2025 5. 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. 340 of 2020, dated 21.12.2020, registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the 3 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), with Police Station, Sadar Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., the judgment of conviction dated 9.4.2025, order of sentence dated 11.4.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), as well as, the consequential proceedings thereto, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’). 6. Relief, as claimed for, has been sought on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in order to maintain their cordial relations. 7. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which has been annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-3. 8. On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, has been made. 4 9. 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. 10. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. has been filed before the learned trial Court. Thereafter, the learned trial Court, vide judgment of conviction, dated 9.4.2025 and order of sentence, dated 11.4.2025, has convicted the petitioner, for the offences, punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC and Section 196 of M.V.Act, and sentenced him, as under: Sr. No.1 Section Sentence imposed In default 1 279 IPC Six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- Simple imprisonment for 30 days. 2. 337 IPC Six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- Simple imprisonment for 30 days. 3. 338 IPC Six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- Simple imprisonment for 30 days. 4. 196 M.V. Act Three months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- Simple imprisonment for a period of two months. 11. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner had preferred the appeal 5 bearing Cr. Appeal No. 21 of 2025, titled as, ‘Aadarsh Kumar versus State, before the learned Appellate Court, which is still pending adjudication. 12. Today, respondent No. 3, who, has put criminal machinery into motion, has appeared before this Court and made a statement, on oath, about the manner, in which, she 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 her, respondent No. 2 and the petitioner. 13. Lastly, respondent No. 3, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that she does not want to proceed further with the matter, as, the parties want to live in peace and harmony in future. She has also stated that she has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question is quashed. 14. Respondent No. 2 has also deposed on the similar lines. 15. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner. The petitioner has deposed that he 6 was neither rash nor negligent while driving the vehicle in question, but the accident had taken place due to error of judgment. 16. Heard. 17. 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. 18. 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, she has submitted that she has no objection, in case the present petition is allowed. 19. In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-3, which bears the signatures of petitioner, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, respondent No. 3 does not want to proceed further with the case and has specifically stated that she has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question, the judgment of conviction dated 9.4.2025 and order of 7 sentence dated 11.4.2025, passed by the learned trial Court, as well as, other consequential proceedings, pending before the learned Appellate Court, are quashed. 20. 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. 3, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law. 21. Acceptance of the compromise will help the parties to live peacefully in the society and also save the precious judicial time of the learned Appellate Court, and the learned Appellate Court will be in a position to devote such time, for deciding some other serious matters, pending before it. 22. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR in question, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as well as, 8 consequential proceedings, as referred to above, are quashed. 23. The statements, so recorded, and the compromise, Annexure P-3, be read as part of the judgment. 24. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge June 18, 2025 Kalpana