2025:HHC:5740 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.94 of 2025 Decided on : 12.03.2025 Hatish Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Arvind Negi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.5. 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.226/2021, dated 13.12.2021 (hereinafter referred to as 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:5740 the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.3, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). 2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the basis of the compromise, effected between the petitioner and respondent No.4, who is complainant. 3. As per the case, set up by the petitioner, FIR, in question, which was registered on the statement of respondent No.4, was an outcome of road accident with misunderstanding. 4. According to the petitioner, the matter has now been compromised between him and respondent No.4 with the intervention of the respectables of the society. He has entered into compromise, on 24.12.2024, with respondent No.4, who has lodged the FIR, in question, against him. The Compromise Deed is Annexure P-2. 5. On the basis of the said compromise, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, as prayed for, by 3 2025:HHC:5740 quashing the FIR, in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, if any. 6. 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.4, as well as, the manner, in which, the investigation has been conducted, by the police, in this case. 7. The complainant, who has put the criminal machinery into motion, in this case, has been arrayed as respondent No.4. 8. Vide order dated 05.03.2025, after perusal of the status report, filed by respondent No.1, this Court has impleaded the person, who had sustained injuries in the accident in question, as respondent No.5, in this case. 9. On 05.03.2025, respondent No.4/complainant, appeared before the Court and deposed, on oath, that on 13.12.2021, an accident had taken place, in which, Deepak (respondent No.5) had sustained injuries. Thereafter, on the basis of his statement, FIR, in question, has been lodged against the petitioner. 4 2025:HHC:5740 10. Respondent No.4/complainant has further deposed that in the said accident, the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, but the same had taken place due to confusion and error of judgment. 11. Apart from this, respondent No.4 has also deposed that during the pendency of the case, 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.4 has also shown his voluntariness and willingness to enter into the compromise with the petitioner, by stating that compromise has been effected out of his free will, consent and without any pressure. 13. Today i.e. on 12.03.2025, similar type of statement has also been made by respondent No.5, on oath. 14. Respondent No.5 has deposed that in the said accident, he had suffered simple injuries. He has also deposed that the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent in the said accident. He has further deposed that he has no 5 2025:HHC:5740 objection, if the present petition is allowed, as prayed for, in view of the compromise, arrived at between the petitioner and respondent No.4. 15. On 05.03.2025, similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner, on oath. 16. Heard. 17. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.4, by lodging the FIR, in question. Respondent No.5 is the person, who had allegedly suffered injuries, in the accident, in question. However, when, appeared before the Court, he deposed that although, he had sustained simple injuries, but, in the said accident, the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent. 18. 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, the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, in such situation, the chances of success of prosecution case, against the petitioner, are very bleak. 19. When, the petitioner, as well as, respondents No.4 and 5, have buried all their disputes, by 6 2025:HHC:5740 compromising the matter, vide Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2, then, permitting the proceedings to continue, would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law. 20. 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, respondents No.4 and 5 to live peacefully in the society. 21. 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. 22. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise, Annexure P-2, entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.4. 23. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.226/2021, dated 13.12.2021, registered with Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the IPC, as well as, the 7 2025:HHC:5740 proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 24. The Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2, and the statements of the parties, shall form part of the judgment. 25. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge March 12, 2025 (Gaurav Thakur)