1( 2025:HHC:33499 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 862 of 2025 Decided on : 25.9.2025 Sourav Katoch …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. …Respondents ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents :Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in person with Ms. Manjeet Kaur, 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. 58/2022, dated 18.04.2022, registered under Sections 279, 337 and 2( 2025:HHC:33499 ) 338 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) with Police Station, Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra,H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) by way of police case bearing No. 2414 of 2023, registration No. 143/23, titled as State Vs. Sourav Katoch, on the basis of the compromise. 2. According to the petitioner, the accident as alleged in the FIR in question had taken place due to the error of judgment as he was neither rash nor negligent. 3. Apart from this, it has been also pleaded that with the intervention of the respectables of the society, the matter has now been compromised between the petitioner and respondent No.2, who had lodged the FIR in question and respondent No.3, who had sustained injuries in the accident in question. 4. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been stated to be reduced into writing, which has been annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-2. 3( 2025:HHC:33499 ) 5. On the basis of the said settlement, a prayer has been made for quashing the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court. 6. When put to notice, respondent No. 1-State has filed the status report, disclosing therein about the fact that on 18.4.2022 in the evening time, an intimation was received in Police Station Nagrota Bagwan upon which the I.O visited the Civil Hospital, Nagrota Bagwan, where respondent No.2-Anuj Kumar got recorded his statement before ASI Sunil Kumar, disclosing therein, that he is running a shop near Peer Baba Mandir in Nagrota Bagwan market. On 18.04.2022, at about 4.30 p.m, he noticed that a vehicle No. HP53B-6814 being driven by its driver, came there and hit a person, who was working on the side of the road. Due to impact of the vehicle, Prahalad son of Sh. Karam Chand(respondent No.3) sustained injuries and become un-conscious. Thereafter, he was taken to the hospital. According to the complainant, the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP53B-6814. 4( 2025:HHC:33499 ) 7. Apart from this, respondent No.1 has also pleaded the fact as to how the police had conducted the investigation and after the conclusion of the investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner by arraying him as accused, in this case, under Sections 279,337 and 338 I.P.C in the learned trial Court. 8. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are present in person. In their statements recorded on oath they have categorically stated that the accident in question had taken place due to the error of judgment and both of them have exonerated the petitioner from the allegations of rash and negligent driving, by deposing that the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent. 9. Apart from this, both of them, in unequivocal terms, have deposed that now, the matter has been settled between them, vide compromise Annexure P-2. On the basis of above settlement, they have stated that they have no objection, if the present petition is allowed. 10. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner. 11. Heard. 5( 2025:HHC:33499 ) 12. The criminal machinery in the present case, has been put into motion, by respondent No.2, by levelling the allegations of rash and negligent driving against the driver of vehicle No.HP53B-6814. However, the said person, when appeared,before this Court, not only exonerated the petitioner, but also deposed about the compromise, which has taken place between the parties i.e the petitioner, respondent No.2 and 3. 13. The person who had sustained injuries, has been impleaded, in this case, as respondent No.3. While appearing before this Court, he has stated, on oath, that the accident in question had taken place due to error of judgment. He has also exonerated the petitioner from the allegations of rash and negligent driving. 14. Considering the stand of respondents No. 2 and 3, this Court is of the considered opinion that the chances of success of the prosecution case, before the learned Trial Court are very weak, as, the injured, as well as, the complainant both have exonerated the the petitioner. 15. Moreover, when the petitioner, as well as respondents No. 2 and 3, have settled the matter amicably 6( 2025:HHC:33499 ) then the sincere efforts made by them must receive the acknowledgment from this Court 16. Even otherwise, this Court is satisfied with regard to the genuineness of the compromise Annexure P-2. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. The statements, so recorded, and the compromise, Annexure P-2, be read as part of the judgment. 7( 2025:HHC:33499 ) 20. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge September 25, 2025 veena