IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. MMO No. 610 of 2025 Decided on: 11th July, 2025 Vicky Kumar .......Petitioner Versus State of H.P and Ors. ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Kamal Kant Chandel Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Addl. A.G. for respondents No.1 to 3. Ms. Manisha Kumari, Advocate for respondent No.4. 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. 29 of 2024, dated 20.01.2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) with Police Station, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the Court of learned 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’). 2. Relief, as claimed for, has been sought on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and respondent No.4, 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-2. 4. On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, has been made. 5. When put to notice, respondents No. 1 to 3, have filed the status report, disclosing therein, the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and criminal machinery swung into motion. 6. It is the further case of respondents No.1 to 3 that after completion of investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed. Cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court and the matter is stated to be pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 7. Today, respondent No.4, who, had put criminal machinery into motion, has appeared in Court and has made a statement, on oath, about the manner, in which, he has lodged the FIR in 3 question and factum of the compromise, which has been effected, between the parties, in order to maintain cordial relations, between him and the petitioner. According to him, there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner, in the accident in question, as the same had taken place, due to error of judgment. 8. Lastly, respondent No.4, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he does not want to proceed further with the matter, in order to maintain cordial relations between them. He has also stated that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question and the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 9. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner. 10. Heard 11. 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. 12. The person, who 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.4 has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations of rash and negligent driving, by deposing that he was not negligent, while driving and the accident in question had 4 taken place, due to error of judgment. He has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed. 13. In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, which bears the signatures of petitioner and respondent No.4, the complainant does not want to proceed further with the case and has specifically stated that he 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. 14. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society and when, the parties to the lis, i.e. petitioner and respondent No.4, 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.4, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law. 15. Acceptance of the compromise will help the parties to live peacefully in the society and also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, as the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote such time, for deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it. 16. When, respondent No.4 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, 5 are not so bright, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive. 17. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending adjudication before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 18. The statements, so recorded today, and the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, be read as part of the judgment. 19. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. July 11, 2025 ( Virender Singh ) (G.M) Judge 6