1( 2025:HHC:7797 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.1324 of 2024 Date of Decision: 25.03.2025 Dev Singh & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & another …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Petitioners with Mr. Kirti Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General for respondent No.1/State Respondent No.2, in person with Ms. Ankita, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) The petitioners have 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.285 of 2023, dated 31.12.2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) registered with Police Station, Shimla (West), District Shimla, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2( 2025:HHC:7797 ) Magistrate, Court No.2, Shimla, District Shimla, 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 petitioners and respondent No.2, 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, 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. 6. It is the further case of respondent No.1, 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. 3( 2025:HHC:7797 ) 7. Today, respondent No. 2, 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 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 part of petitioner No.1, in the accident in question, as the same had taken place, due to error of judgment. 8. Lastly, respondent No.2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he does not want to proceed further with the matter, in order to maintain their cordial relations. 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 statements have also been made by petitioner No.1 as well as petitioners No.2 and 3, (injured), on oath. 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. 4( 2025:HHC:7797 ) 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.2 has exonerated petitioner No.1 from 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. 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 No.1 as well as petitioners No.2 and 3(injured), and respondent No.2, respondent No.2, 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 in the society and when, the parties to the lis, i.e. petitioners and respondent No. 2, 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. 2, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law. 5( 2025:HHC:7797 ) 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. 2, has exonerated petitioner No.1 from the allegations of rash and negligent driving, in that eventuality, chances of success of the prosecution case, against the petitioners, 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, 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. (Virender Singh) Judge March 25, 2025 (subhash)