2025:HHC:1291 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.1331 of 2024 Decided on : 07.01.2025 Virender Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Arush Matlotia, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General, with Ms. Ranjana Patial, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.229 of 2024, dated 15.10.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:1291 Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 281 and 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’). 2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the basis of the compromise, effected between the parties. 3. According to the petitioner, the FIR, in question, has been registered against him, on the complaint of respondent No.2. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the final report has not been submitted by the police. 5. According to the petitioner, the matter has been compromised, between him and respondent No.2. He has entered into compromise, on 18.10.2024, with respondent No.2, who has lodged the FIR, in question, against him. The Compromise Deed is Annexure P-2. 6. On the basis of the said compromise, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, as prayed for, by quashing the FIR, in question. 7. When, put to notice, respondent No.1-State has filed the status report, mentioning therein, the circumstances, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.2, as well as, 3 2025:HHC:1291 the manner, in which, the investigation is going on, by the police, in this case. 8. The petitioner has impleaded the complainant, as respondent No.2. 9. Today, respondent No.2-complainant, appeared before the Court and deposed, on oath, that on 15.10.2024, the accident had taken place. In the said accident, his daughter had sustained fatal injuries and expired. 10. Respondent No.2/complainant has further deposed that on his statement, FIR in question has been registered against the petitioner and investigation of the case is still going on. He further deposed that in the said accident, the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, but the same had taken place due to error of judgment. 11. Apart from this, respondent No.2 has also deposed that now, the matter has been settled with the petitioner, vide Compromise Deed Annexure P-2. He has also deposed that in view of the compromise, he has no objection, if the present petition is allowed, as prayed for. 12. In addition to this, respondent No.2 has also shown his voluntariness and willingness to enter into the 4 2025:HHC:1291 compromise with the petitioner, by stating that compromise has been effected out of his free will, consent and without any pressure. 13. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner, on oath. 14. Heard. 15. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.2, by lodging the FIR, in question, who initially had levelled the allegations of rash and negligent driving against the petitioner, however, when appeared before this Court, he has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations of rash and negligent driving, by deposing, on oath, that the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, but, according to him, the accident had taken place due to error of judgment. 16. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations, by stating, on oath, that in the accident, in question, petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, in such situation, the chances of success of prosecution case against the petitioner are not so bright. 5 2025:HHC:1291 17. When, the parties have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide Compromise Deed Annexure P-2, then, permitting the investigation to continue, would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law. 18. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society. Acceptance of the petition, would also give another opportunity to the petitioner, as well as, respondent No.2 to live peacefully in the society. 19. Even otherwise, acceptance of the compromise, by this Court, will save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, which, the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote for the decision of some other serious matters, pending before it. 20. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise, Annexure P-2, entered into between the parties. 21. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.229 of 2024, dated 15.10.2024, registered with Police Station Nurpur, District Kangra, 6 2025:HHC:1291 H.P., under Sections 281 and 106 of the BNS, is ordered to be quashed. 22. The Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2, and the statements of the parties, shall form part of the judgment. 23. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge January 07, 2025 (Gaurav Thakur)