2025:HHC:34440 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 957 of 2025 Decided on   :  10.10.2025 Pankaj 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       : Petitioner in person with Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents   : Mr. H.S.   Rawat,   Additional Advocate   General,  Mr. Rohit Sharma,   Deputy   Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 3 in person, with Mr. Janak Raj, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral). Petitioner–Pankaj Kumar 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.   42/2018,   dated   11.02.2018, (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘FIR   in   question’)   registered 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:34440 under   Sections   279,   337,   338   of   Indian   Penal   Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Sections 181 and 196   of   Motor   Vehicles   Act,   with  Police   Station   Sadar Bilaspur,   District   Bilaspur,   H.P.,     as   well   as,   the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the Court of learned   Judicial   Magistrate   First   Class,   Court   No.   3 Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), on the basis of the compromise, which is stated   to   have   taken   place   between   the   petitioner   and respondent No. 3. 2. The   present   petition   has   been   filed   by   the petitioner   on   the   ground   that   on   11.02.2018,   on   the statement   of   respondent   No.   3,   FIR   in   question   was registered against him, in which, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted charge sheet before the learned trial Court. 3. It is his further case that during the pendency of those proceedings, matter has now been compromised with the intervention of the respectable members of the society   and   on   the   basis   of   compromise,   a   prayer   for quashing of the FIR in question has been made. 3 2025:HHC:34440 4. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, as prayed for. 5. When put to notice, police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 11.02.2018, respondent No. 3 Jyoti was proceeding from her house to the market and   when   she   reached   near   Dhamla­Batbhour,   a motorcycle coming from Bilaspur side, being driven at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by Pankaj   (petitioner),   lost   control   and   struck   against   her right   leg,   whereafter   the   motorcycle   collided   with   the roadside parapet and fell on the road. Due to the impact, the complainant­respondent No. 3 fell on the road and was taken   to   District   Hospital   Bilaspur   for   treatment. The vehicle was being driven by petitioner Pankaj. Thereafter, FIR   in   question   has   been   registered   and   the   criminal machinery   swung   into   motion. On   completion   of   the investigation, challan against the petitioner has been filed, which   is   pending   adjudication,   before   the   learned   trial Court. 6. Complainant ­ injured has been impleaded as respondent No. 3, in this case, who has put appearance 4 2025:HHC:34440 along with her Counsel. Respondent No. 3 has made a categorical   statement   that   on   her   statement,   police registered the FIR in question, against petitioner Pankaj Kumar, however, the accident had taken place due to error of   judgment. Thereafter,   the   police   conducted   the investigation and after the investigation, charge­sheet has been filed, which is pending before the learned trial Court. 7. According to respondent No. 3, the matter has now been compromised, in terms of compromise Annexure P­2, which bears her signatures encircled red at point A. The   said   compromise   is   stated   to   have   been   effected between the parties out of their sweet free will and without any coercion. 8. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner. 9. Heard. 10. On the basis of above facts, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that there is no previous criminal history of the petitioner, and according to him, the accident in question seems to have taken place due to the error of judgment. As such, it has been prayed 5 2025:HHC:34440 that petitioner, as well as, respondent No. 3, have taken positive steps to settle the dispute and said efforts should be recognized by the Court. 11. When,   the   person   who   has   put   the   criminal machinery into motion has deposed, on oath, by stating that the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, but, the accident   in   question   had   taken   place   due   to   error   of judgment,   then,   permitting   the   proceedings   against   the petitioner to continue would be nothing, but, the abuse of process of law. The chances of success of the case of the prosecution against the petitioner are also not so bright. 12. Moreover,   the   acceptance   of   the   petition   will also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote such time for the decision of some other serious matters. 13. Considering   all   these   facts,   the   petition   is allowed.   FIR   No.   42/2018   dated   11.02.2018,   under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and Sections 181 and 196 of M.V. Act, registered with Police Station, Sadar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P., as well as, proceedings resultant 6 2025:HHC:34440 thereto, pending in the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 14. The compromise deeds, as well as, statements of the parties, recorded today shall form part of this order. 15. Pending   applications,   if   any,   also   stand disposed of. ( Virender Singh ) Judge 10th October, 2025 (Pramod Kumar)