1 ( 2025:HHC:42184 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.1099 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.12.2025 Aarju Thakur …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person with Mr. Anirudh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma & Mr. Mohinder Zharaick Additional Advocates General, with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General, assisted by HC. Neeraj No.232, Police Post Dhami, Police Station, West Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., for respondent No.1/State. Respondents No.2 and 3 in person with Mr. Bhanu Pratap, 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.38 of 2024, dated 07.03.2024 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:42184 ) under Sections 279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’), registered with Police Station, West Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto., which are pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.VI, 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 petitioner and respondents No.2 & 3, 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, has been made. 5. When put to notice, respondent No.1-State, has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 07.03.2024, when respondent No.2 (complainant) and respondent No.3, were present at Galog (Dhami), then, at 3 ( 2025:HHC:42184 ) about 6:15 PM, a vehicle bearing registration No.HP11-6776, being driven by the petitioner came there and hit respondents No.2 and 3. Consequently, both of them had sustained injuries. Thereafter, FIR, in question, has been registered at the instance of respondent No.2 and criminal machinery swung into motion. After completion of investigation, challan has been prepared and submitted in the learned trial Court. 6. Today, respondent No.2, who, had put criminal machinery into motion, has appeared in the Court and has made a statement, on oath, about the manner, in which, she has lodged the FIR in question and factum of the compromise, which has been effected, between the parties. According to her, the petitioner was neither rash, nor negligent, but, the accident, in question, had taken place, due to error of judgment. 7. Lastly, respondent No.2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that since the matter has been compromised between the parties, as such, she has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question and 4 ( 2025:HHC:42184 ) the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 8. Similar type of statements have also been made by the petitioner, as well as, respondents 3, on oath. 9. Heard. 10. 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. 11. 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 the petitioner from the allegations of rash and negligent driving, by deposing that she was not negligent, while driving and the accident in question had taken place, due to error of judgment. She has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed. 12. In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, which bears the signatures of petitioner, as well as, respondents No.2 & 3, after entering into the compromises, 5 ( 2025:HHC:42184 ) has specifically stated that she 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. 13. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace in the society and when, the parties to the lis, i.e. petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3, have buried all their disputes by compromising 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. 14. Acceptance of the compromise will also help the parties to live peacefully in the society and also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, which the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote such time for deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it. 15. When, respondent No.2 has exonerated the petitioner from the allegations of rash and negligent driving, in that eventuality, chances of success of the prosecution case, against the petitioner, are not so bright, as such, no 6 ( 2025:HHC:42184 ) useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive. 16. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 17. The statements, so recorded, and the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, be read as part of the judgment. 18. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge December 05, 2025 (subhash)