1   ( 2025:HHC:22338 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.589 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.07.2025 Madan Lal …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, assisted by H.C. Neeraj No.232, Police Post Dhami, Police Station West Shimla, for respondent No.1/State Respondent No.2 in person with Mr. Sachin Sunali, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) 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.41 of 2025, dated 11.03.2025 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 125(a), 125(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S’) and Sections 181, 185 & 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2   ( 2025:HHC:22338 ) MV Act’), with Police Station, Shimla West, District Shimla, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto. 2. Relief, as claimed for, has been sought on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and respondent No.2, who is mother of complainant Amit Kumar, in order to maintain their cordial relations. 3. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which have been annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-4. 4. On all these submissions, a prayer has been made to allow the present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto. 5. 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 the manner, in which, the investigation is being conducted. 6. Today, respondent No.2, mother of complainant Amit Kumar, who, had put criminal machinery into motion, has appeared in the Court and has made a statement, on oath, about the manner, in which, Amit Kumar had 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 and petitioner. 3   ( 2025:HHC:22338 ) According to her, there was no negligence on part of the petitioner, in the accident in question, as the same had taken place, due to error of judgment. 7. Lastly, respondent No.2, who is mother of complainant, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that she does not want to proceed further with the matter, in order to maintain their cordial relations. She has also stated that she has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question and the proceedings resultant thereto, are quashed. The person who had put the criminal machinery into motion by lodging the FIR, as per the statement of his mother, had expired. 8. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner. 9. Heard. 10. 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. 11. The person, whose son had 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. Respondent No.2, has exonerated the petitioner from 4   ( 2025:HHC:22338 ) the allegations of rash and negligent driving, by deposing that he was not negligent, while driving and the accident, in question, had taken place, due to error of judgment. 12. In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-4, which bears the signatures of petitioner, as well as, mother of respondent No.2, mother of complainant, who has deposed that she 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, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings pending before the learned trial Court. 13. 13. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace in the society and when, the parties to the lis, i.e. petitioner and mother of complainant (since expired), have buried their disputes and compromised the matter, then, continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of the FIR in question, lodged by son of respondent No.2, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law. 14. Acceptance of the compromise will help the parties to live peacefully in the society and also save the precious judicial time of the Court, where the charge-sheet will be filed and such Court, will 5   ( 2025:HHC:22338 ) be in a position to devote such time, for deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it. 15. When, mother of complainant (respondent No.2) has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations of rash and negligent driving, in that eventuality, chances of success of the prosecution case, against the petitioner, are not so bright, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive. 16. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, are quashed. 17. The statements, so recorded, and the compromise deed, Annexure P-4, be read as part of the judgment. 18. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge July 09, 2025 (subhash)